On Behalf Of Sebastian Damm
Sent: 09 August 2018 09:00
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] UDP workers block when one or more rtpengine instances
go offline
Hi Muhammad,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:34 AM Muhammad Zaka
wrote:
> You may need the following fix for y
-Original Message-
From: sr-users On Behalf Of Sebastian Damm
Sent: 08 August 2018 12:38
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] UDP workers block when one or more rtpengine instances
go offline
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:04 PM Richard Fuchs wrote:
> On 2018-08-06 06
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:04 PM Richard Fuchs wrote:
> On 2018-08-06 06:58, Sebastian Damm wrote:
> When you query the running config via kamcmd for the value of
> rtpengine_tout_ms, what does it say? (Wondering if the default value of
> 1000 properly gets established or if some other value is in
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:49:58PM +0200, Sebastian Damm wrote:
> Oh, and we tested the disabling and enabling via kamctl before, but as
> far as I remember, while disabling still worked, Kamailio crashed
> reproducably when enabling an rtpengine again.
We had the same problem, this was fixed in
On 2018-08-06 06:58, Sebastian Damm wrote:
Hi,
we run multiple rtpengine servers to share the load. Whenever we need
to take an rtpengine server offline, we used to just block the control
port via iptables, then no new calls ended up on this instance of
rtpengine. This worked pretty well in
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:56 PM Daniel Tryba wrote:
> BTW forgot to ask: are you REJECTing or DROPing packets?
> A reject should trigger a failover in the rtpengine_* calls immediately.
Of course, we block the traffic with a REJECT rule.
> A drop will result in a timeout mechanism triggering,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:37:15PM +0200, Sebastian Damm wrote:
> Of course, that's probably the better way. But as far as I know, that
> command wasn't available before 5.0. So I guess our blocking of the
> control port was the way we did it before that.
>
> But anyhow, if an rtpengine crashes,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:37:15PM +0200, Sebastian Damm wrote:
> > kamcmd rtpengine.enable udp:x.y.z.a:port 0/1
> > on the kamailio machines?
>
> Of course, that's probably the better way. But as far as I know, that
> command wasn't available before 5.0. So I guess our blocking of the
> control
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 2:17 PM Daniel Tryba wrote:
> No answer to you question (which sounds like a legit problem), but why
> not do it with:
> kamcmd rtpengine.enable udp:x.y.z.a:port 0/1
> on the kamailio machines?
Of course, that's probably the better way. But as far as I know,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 12:58:00PM +0200, Sebastian Damm wrote:
> we run multiple rtpengine servers to share the load. Whenever we need
> to take an rtpengine server offline, we used to just block the control
> port via iptables, then no new calls ended up on this instance of
> rtpengine. This
10 matches
Mail list logo
