Hello,
I have a question about LCR which I have been unable to solve. I have 4
upstream carrier gateways owned by 2 carriers. Each carrier provides a
primary and secondary gateway for load balancing purposes. On a 5XX error I
am trying to send the same call to the other carrier. If both carrier
There is nothing wrong with the carriers, so I wouldn't want to mark them.
Just no route to destination type scenario.
I like daniels option with the drop on_branch. Only challenge I have is
keeping a list of all the flags I have already tried. Say I have five
carrier groups and I set the flags
Hello,
I am just curious because I have seen a couple of references to the fr_timer
being in SECONDS and some look like they are in MILLISECONDS. In 1.5.X,
what is this value?
Also - will fr_timer control the retransmission of an INVITE if no 100
Trying is received? Right now it appears my confi
Greetings,
I am confused at some functionality I am seeing with Kamailio 1.5.4. I
know this is an old version, but I don't have the time to go through a
lengthy upgrade process right now. The issue I am seeing is that the
server is inserting a Route header with it's own IP address for an unknown
kind
> of processing (just to analyze it, not need to upgrade to 3.2.x).
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On 5/2/12 12:26 AM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>> I am confused at some functionality I am seeing with Kamailio 1.5.4. I know
>> this is an old
Greetings,
We are considering implementing an LCR which functions by returning a 302
with a list of our upstream carriers ordered by cost per minute.
Is there a way with the uac_redirect module in 1.5 to write the q value for
the branch that answers so we can calculate the cost of the call?
Thank
Greetings,
I am looking for a way to get some extra information out of the Contact
header when consuming a multiple choices response. I am using uac_redirect
to populate the branches.
get_redirects("*");
t_load_contacts();
t_next_contacts();
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
In my failure_route[2]
I should have been more clear. I am using Kamailio 1.5. I would consider
upgrading, but that isn't the ideal path here.
Any other idea for 1.5?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:46 AM, I.Pavlov wrote:
> Hi Geoff, to grab “rate”-attribute try to use
> “$sel(contact.params["rate"]);”-expression. For
(ct{param.value,rate})");
>
> acc_log_request(“RATE: $(ct{param.value,rate})”);
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org [mailto:
> sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] *On Behalf Of *Geoffrey Mina
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2
Greetings,
I am migrating some 1.5 servers to 4.0 and I have some questions about how
the LCR module works now.
I am familiar with the concept of the gw table and the lcr table. This was
pretty straight forward. In the new version it looks like we have:
LCR Gateway List
LCR Rule List
LCR Target
I am having some trouble getting Siremis 4.0 to work with Kamailio 4.0.
The PHP application is functioning fine and all the DB access is working as
intended. Where I am having an issue is with the "Command Services"
section. I am unclear weather I want the "MI" or "XMLRPC". The basic
functions I
:
> If you simply want a web interface for MI/RPC commands, take a look at
> the xhttp_rpc module:
> http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/xhttp_rpc
>
> Regards,
> Ovidiu Sas
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Geoffrey Mina
> wrote:
> > I am having so
efix together like this: lcr_id =3, gw_id=4 (Match the id value in lcr_gw
> table), rule_id = 2 (Match the id in lcr_rule table) also rest of the
> fields like priority etc.
>
> Hope this help.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
&g
e several sets of lcr_id, you will end up with
> several duplicate gateway and rulls. It is not the best design and is hard
> to use.
>
> To reload lcr you do this: sercmd lcr.reload
>
> Gary Chen
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
>
>
I have cleaned up the XML/RPC.php error. Now when I run the MI commands or
the XMLRPC commands they just return blank and it doesn't seem to connect
to the underlying system.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
> We use Siremis for configuration of our LCR, ACL and C
Igor,
I have successfully migrated to Kamailio 4.0 so I can use the function as
you defined. I am getting back a "0" instead of the actual rate though.
The only difference I can see is that my "q" and "rate" are outside of the
angle brackets in the Contact header:
Yours: *Contact: sip:sipp@[local
ers that have the rates. I
want to use the acc module to log the rate with the CDR based on the
carrier we are sending the call to.
I have attached my current config file so you can see what we are doing
here.
Thanks,
Geoff
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
> Igor,
>
Are you using xlog() at all in your config? If you don't specify the log level
it defaults to error.
Those look like non-errors to me.
On Jul 1, 2013, at 2:23 PM, arun Jayaprakash wrote:
> Hello, when I try and register an extension I get the following errors, can
> someone let me know what
I am still a little baffled by the new LCR table structures and i am having
a hard time figuring out how to use them. I want to different LCR gateways
for two different prefixes. When I load up this configuration,
lcr.dump_gws is only returning the Gateway with Lcr ID: 1. What am I doing
wrong h
OK. I updated that to 10 and now it loads both. Is there any harm in
making it 100 even though I will never use that many? Just so I don't need
to restart Kamailio to add new routes?
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Geoffrey Mina writes:
>
> > I
After installing Siremis as per the instructions, i get the following error.
Anyone know how to solve this?
"Not able to get the right data table of given form
help.form.HelpWidgetListForm"
After clicking OK I get this:
"Unable to create object from class Openbiz.TableForm. TypeError: table is
Can anyone tell me why Kamailio 4.0 is sending the INVITE out with the
Route Header intact? The call is running through this block which I
thought should remove it before sending it out. The far end is having a
hard time dealing with the fact that the Route header is in there and we
aren't lookin
on before and after Kamailio. Maybe
> a lookup (with Path?) or similar? If you want to remove a header,
> which you added previously in the routing logic, then you will have to
> apply the changes before removing the header again
> (msg_apply_changes())... better would be not adding the h
Greetings,
I have a challenge which I can't imagine is unique to my situation. I have
agreements with multiple ITSP/SIP providers for inbound and outbound use
cases. I am trying to figure out a way to track and monitor - on a per
trunk basis - statistics about open dialogs. In the end, I would l
I am not 100% sure I fully understand my issue, but I think I'm on the right
track. I have a situation where Asterisk will drop calls a few seconds
after they are set up. What I believe is happening:
a=asterisk
k=kamailio
k --> INVITE --> a
a --> 100 TRYING --> k
a --> 183 RINGING --> k
a --> 2
Hey everyone,
Just wanted to bounce some things off the list to make sure I'm not heading
down the wrong path here. I'll quickly explain my problem and then explain
my plan to deal with it. Please let me know if anyone sees an issue here.
Problem: I need to send FROM two different IP addresses b
OK, but since this is 1.5, I would still use the GW Group ID, correct?
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Juha Heinanen writes:
>
> > > if(to_gw("1")){
> > > force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
> > >}else if(to_gw("2")){
> > > force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
instead of having to change it 2 places for each machine.
Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Geoffrey Mina writes:
>
> > modparam("pv","shvset","gw_one=s:1.1.1.1:5060")
> > modparam("pv","shvset","g
nks!
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
> The only reason I would choose to keep the values at the top is because I
> have 4 machines which all need a copy of the script but would need the
> IP changed per machine. Since the IP will be referenced in both
> REQUEST_R
perhaps store it in a htable with call-id as the key and overwrite the
value each time we call next_gw() (in the event there are failures)... just
not sure this is the best idea.
Thanks to everyone for your time and effort here.
Much appreciated!
-Geoff
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:45 PM, I
OK, I have decided to use htable to store the AVP returned by the LCR
module. I have everything working, except I have run into a strange issue
with my failure_route logic.
Immediately after calling next_gw() in my initial REQUEST_ROUTE or
FAILURE_ROUTE, I populate an htable which maps the socket
I am having an issue with 1.5.4 where force_send_socket() isn't behaving as
I would expect.
I have an LCR scenario where depending on which gateway I am sending to, I
send from a different socket.
It appears that calling force_send_socket from failure_route has no affect
on the routing. In my in
pseudo-variables/devel#branch_attributes
>
> or try Juha's suggestion with branch_route
>
> regards
> klaus
>
> Am 28.06.2010 19:08, schrieb Geoffrey Mina:
>
>> I am having an issue with 1.5.4 where force_send_socket() isn't behaving
>> as I would exp
I have also seen this with Kamailio 1.5 I have not confirmed whether
Kamailio is sending the 200 OK back down to my asterisk server or not.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Klaus Darilion <
klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at> wrote:
> The log does not tell us anything.
>
> If you want to know from us i
##
##
# Failure route 'pstn-failover'
failure_route[1]
{
xlog("L_INFO", "Failure route for PSTN entered - M=$rm RURI=$ru F=$fu
T=$tu IP=$si ID=$ci\n");
How difficult would it be to make ds_select_domain(set, alg) accept a pseudo
variable for the "set" argument? I would like to map the $rU to a specific
dispatcher set via a database table. I suppose i could just hard code three
or four sets with a conditional if() statement, but I would prefer to
;
>
> On 7/15/10 9:15 AM, Vic Jolin wrote:
>
> I sure would love to know if this will work
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
>
>> How difficult would it be to make ds_select_domain(set, alg) accept a
>> pseudo variable for the "set&qu
I would guess your back-end database is causing the slowdown. Without
knowing, well, anything about your setup, it will be hard to say.
I have seen both acc and sip_trace cause latency when the tables got too big.
On 7/16/10, hala alramli wrote:
> Hello,
> some time ,there is no signal in phone
I believe the issue is that he is trying to take requests on one
kamailio instance (5061) and send them out as if they came from the
other kamailio instance (5060) to 'normalize' the responses back
through just 5060.
Either I am not interprting correctly or there is a major design flaw here.
On 7
Hello,
I have a question about the "priority" in the dispatcher module. I looked
in the docu-wiki and there was nothing which actually described how this
field is used (exactly), so I can only guess or ask the list.
Say I have 3 destinations in a set:
set: 1
dest: sip:1.2.3.4:5060
priority: 1
s
ld be.
Thanks.
On 8/26/10, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a question about the "priority" in the dispatcher module. I looked
> in the docu-wiki and there was nothing which actually described how this
> field is used (exactly), so I can only guess or ask the list.
>
Hello,
I have a question about what the proper way to handle a duplicate
presentation of an INVITE is. On occasion I am seeing some packet loss
and/or timing issues which are causing some of my end-points to retransmit
the INVITE. Here is what I am doing in the most basic sense:
ITSP (Bandwidth
docs/modules/1.5.x/tm.html#id2509242
>
> Cheers,
> Uriel
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Geoffrey Mina
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have a question about what the proper way to handle a duplicate
> > presentation of an INVITE is. On occasion I am seeing some pac
Cool.
Thanks to you both for your input. I am promoted my new config to
production and we'll see if we have any more failures with retransmissions.
So far so good though.
Thanks,
Geoff
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/8/30 Geoffrey Mina :
> >
Hello,
I am currently going through an Inter-Op test with a new carrier and there
have been some issues. I have my Kamailio server integrated with many
tier-1 carriers, so I'm pretty sure I'm doing everything OK. The problem is
in the BYE coming from the ITSP, the URI isn't valid, but I am not su
I am trying to manually rewrite the RURI for a certain scenario.
The RURI is currently:
sip:110219546496707@12.12.12.12;npdi;rate=0.000880
I want to re-write so it's just:
sip:110219546496707@12.12.12.12
I have the following snippet which isn't working:
xlog("L_INFO","sip:$(ruri{uri.user})@$(rur
Greetings,
I need a little help with the LCR module. I am running Kamailio 4.1.2.
The LCR module is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with our old 1.5
versions. We have a customer that passes a certain caller-id. That
from_uri should be routing over a specific trunk. Here are the relevant
12:56 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Geoffrey Mina writes:
>
> > The LCR module is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with our old 1.5
> > versions. We have a customer that passes a certain caller-id. That
> > from_uri should be routing over a specific trunk. Here are th
to evaluate in the order we want,
what next can we look to?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Geoffrey Mina writes:
>
> > OK. WE have made a change so that the priority is 0 for the route that
> has
> > the from_uri. We are still not seeing t
Juha,
Thank you for all of your help so far, but we are still totally stuck
trying to make this work. We have double and triple checked our
configuration, database, and INVITE and everything is in-line with what
previously worked (in 1.5). We are running 4.1.3, is that what you were
testing on?
50 matches
Mail list logo
