Re: [SR-Users] Transaction Lookup Failing

, which caused the transaction to not match. Through some configuration changes in PJSIP I was able to work around this. Best, Colin On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Colin Morelli <colin.more...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > Trying to debug an issue with canceling an inv

[SR-Users] Transaction Lookup Failing

Hey all, Trying to debug an issue with canceling an invite. I have two different types of clients. On one client, canceling an invite works correctly. With the other client, it t_check_trans fails. Both clients show the same request/responses: On Client A: -> INVITE <- 183 -> PRACK <- 200 ->

Re: [SR-Users] using kamailio to forward ipv6 to ipv4

Can't answer whether or not it's possible as I haven't tried it - but, Consider how this will impact the negotiation between clients and servers. If your B2BUA thinks calls are coming in from IPV4 (instead of IPV6), then it may not offer IPV6 in the invite. Similarly, if the client thinks it's

Re: [SR-Users] Limiting Registration Contacts

istration from a device will > replace its own old contact, even if it has a different contact address. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 01/12/2016 23:59, Colin Morelli wrote: > > Hey Alex - not sure I'm quite following what you mean. The bindings are > only for web clients. Are

[SR-Users] Dual Stack Environments

Hey all, Sorry for two questions out at the same time! I'm using kamailio in front of FS, and I'm about to enable IPv6, but I have a question that I'm not entirely clear on. What's the proper way to forward traffic using the same interface that it came in on? Specifically, if a client connects

Re: [SR-Users] TCP Keepalive for NAT'd Clients

e/modules/tcpops.html > > You can do that when you get the INVITE, before sending a negative > response from kamailio.cfg. Or, if you relay the invite, set a failure > route for it and do the operation there. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 07/11/16 23:26, Colin Morelli wrote: >

[SR-Users] TCP Keepalive for NAT'd Clients

Hey all, Looking to figure out the best way to allow TCP connections to stay alive for NAT'd clients, however, to protect against people just opening TCP connections to the server, I'm hoping to only keepalive TCP connections for connections that have sent an INVITE and received a 200 OK. Does

Re: [SR-Users] Send JSON document over http and process response

Hey Jonathan, You can also use the Jansson module to create the JSON request. For example, in one of my configs, I have a route that looks basically like: $var(params) = $null; jansson_set("string", "request.uri", "$ru", "$var(params)"); jansson_set("string", "request.method", "$rm",

Re: [SR-Users] Path & Loose Route

Luke, This is actually the behavior I would expect, though admittedly I've never tried to rely on received= parameter routing for requests (I wasn't aware that was something that should be supported). However, you're probably better of addressing your NAT issues in a different part of your

Re: [SR-Users] SIP Outbound / t_next_contacts()

ear, but this was a request for clarification, not a bug report - though I will try to make a PR for the outbound documentation page when I get this working. Best, Colin On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM Juha Heinanen <j...@tutpro.com> wrote: > Colin Morelli writes: > > > When there's one

Re: [SR-Users] SIP Outbound / t_next_contacts()

*should* handle itself, no? Best, Colin On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:35 PM Juha Heinanen <j...@tutpro.com> wrote: > Colin Morelli writes: > > > 8(27) DEBUG: tm [t_serial.c:191]: t_load_contacts(): nr_branches is 0 > > 8(27) DEBUG: tm [t_serial.c:194]: t_load_contacts()

[SR-Users] SIP Outbound / t_next_contacts()

Hey all, I've got two layers of Kamailio proxies running. One set of edge proxies that are parking outbound connections and doing load balancing to a set of registrar/proxies. This is working well with one exception: I can't seem to get t_load_contacts/t_next_contacts working correctly for

Re: [SR-Users] How to forward REGISTERs to Asterisk in kamailio with dispatcher module with several Asterisk PBXs?

If you're using Kamailio as a registrar, then it would make the most sense to also use it as your outbound proxy for Asterisk. This would mean whenever Asterisk needs to dial an extension, it would instead make a SIP call to your Kamailio instance which would then perform the lookup, forking, and

Re: [SR-Users] WEBRTC Confusion (2)

gt; > BR, > > Zaka > > > > On 16 July 2016 at 18:11, Colin Morelli <colin.more...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Zaka, >> >> I could be wrong here but I don't think you ever actually have a "listen" >> line for MY_WS_ADDR. >> >>

Re: [SR-Users] WEBRTC Confusion (2)

Zaka, I could be wrong here but I don't think you ever actually have a "listen" line for MY_WS_ADDR. I believe you have a typo, as you have listen=MY_IP_ADDR twice, once within the guard for WITH_WEBSOCKETS. Replace the one inside the if with MY_WS_ADDR and I think your problem should be

Re: [SR-Users] Websocket Path Issues

, > > see if this parameter gets what you are looking for: > > - > https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.p.failure_exec_mode > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 14/07/16 19:34, Colin Morelli wrote: > > Hey all, > > I'm using Kamailio as an outbo

[SR-Users] Websocket Path Issues

Hey all, I'm using Kamailio as an outbound edge proxy for websocket connections. When my registrar calls out to Kamailio to forward to a websocket connection that has since been killed, rather than just entering the failure branch, it throws a few errors: 5(24) WARNING:

[SR-Users] re-INVITE on IP Change with Outbound

Hey list, So I'm using the outbound module to ensure subsequent requests are delivered over an active TCP connection established by the mobile client. However, now I'm trying to add support for automatically responding to network changes (WiFi <-> LTE), and it's creating problems. Primarily, the

[SR-Users] Distributed Authentication

Hey all, I'm running a cluster of Kamailio instances as a proxy/registrar for another cluster of Freeswitch instances. I'm using http_async_client to make HTTP queries to my API to fetch credentials on auth challenges. Kamailio performs generating the header, and validating the result based on

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio Load Balancer Architecture

Daryn, That response was more general, not necessarily directed at you! DNS-based load balancing has always been problematic for clients. They tend to not properly balance across SRV records, or failover to secondary A records. However, I think the best solution would be something like what

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio Load Balancer Architecture

Maybe I'm missing something about the core infrastructure of Kamailio that makes this impossible, but why does it seem like nobody wants to run multiple Kamailio load balancers in a cluster? sip.yourcompany.com can have A/SRV records pointing to multiple IP addresses of separate Kamailio

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio Iterate All Headers

I suppose there's a lot of subjectivity here - and it greatly depends on your configuration - but at least for my use case I don't quite agree with that statement. My API is already the component performing authentication and making routing decisions anyway, which means Kamailio is going to send

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio Iterate All Headers

those up. Thanks all! Best, Colin On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:49 AM Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net> wrote: > > > On 26 Jun 2016, at 22:29, Colin Morelli <colin.more...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > Back with more questions. > >

[SR-Users] Kamailio Iterate All Headers

Hey all, Back with more questions. I'm using Kamailio to make an HTTP call to my API to perform authentication and message routing. Currently, I'm trying to build up the post body that I send to my API to make those decisions. I've cherry picked a few of the headers that are important in my

Re: [SR-Users] Public vs Internal IPs

Alright, I'll give both approaches a shot and see what comes up. Thanks for the fast response time, Alex! Best, Colin On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:07 PM Alex Balashov wrote: > It can work, but it's more trouble than the other approach, which is > essentially automagic.

Re: [SR-Users] Public vs Internal IPs

Awesome, thank you. If I were to try to avoid opening another point, would it be sensible to call record_route_advertised_address() with the advertised address twice manually (once for the inbound and outbound legs with the appropriate IPs for each)? Internally I assume Kamailio's loose_route()

Re: [SR-Users] Public vs Internal IPs

Hey Alex, Thanks for the response. This is the AWS scenario where there's a 1:1 NAT from the public to private IP. I've got as far as figuring out how to advertise the public IP. But, when I forward the request to another node inside the cluster, I assume I want to double-RR that request so that

[SR-Users] Public vs Internal IPs

Hey all, When using Kamailio at the edge - what's the best practice around how to advertise your Record-Route? I assume it's going to involve the use of a double-RR with both the public and private IPs. However, I'm running in AWS where the host doesn't have two interfaces with both a public and

Re: [SR-Users] t_on_failure route not being called

Sorry all - I've been staring a kamailio config files for too long. The issue was obvious when I read log messages more closely: the route[REROUTE] needed to be failure_route[REROUTE]. Everything works fine now . Best, Colin On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM Colin Morelli <colin.more...@gmail.

[SR-Users] t_on_failure route not being called

Hey all, I'm using a combination of http_async_client and rtjson to query my API and retrieve a JSON target route set for an incoming SIP request that Kamailio will forward to. The HTTP portion of it works great. I'm able to hit my API and get back a JSON document. Additionally, the rtjson

[SR-Users] Kamailio Behind TCP Load Balancer

Hey all, I'm looking to put Kamailio behind a TCP load balancer that is SIP-unaware. My application is deployed in AWS and I'm tying to place Kamailio behind an ELB. For the most part, everything is fine. For my specific implementation I'm disabling UDP as a signaling transport and using only

[SR-Users] Kamilio as Scalable Registrar + Proxy

Hello, I currently have Freeswitch acting as a B2BUA, handling registrations, routing, etc for a prototype voice application I have built. Now I'm at the point where it's time to actually scale it out, and I'm looking at a few different options for the SIP proxy + registration later.