Hello,
check your configuration for 481, afaik, kamailio tm module doesn't send
the 481, that's why I expected to see two BYEs, but there is only one.
Maybe the 481 is sent from kamailio.cfg by your routing logic there.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 03/03/2017 14:50, Olli Attila wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The B
Hello,
The B party (IP: 37.219.148.155) is the one that sends the bye. A party
(IP: 178.75.176.146) will never see this bye because Kamailio (IP:
193.28.89.162) in the middle replies to B party with 481. The result is
that A partys softphone thinks the call is still online.
This can be seen
Hello,
the pcap file doesn't show the BYE coming from caller to proxy. There is
only the BYE from proxy to callee. I need also the one coming to the
proxy in order to see if the required headers are there.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 28/02/2017 21:47, Olli Attila wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm still having this
Hi Olli,
same problem here on 4.4.5
Work only without Call-ID hiding.
Regards
El 28/02/2017 a las 15:47, Olli Attila escribió:
Hello,
I'm still having this issue and now running the new Kamailio 5.0
branch. The pcap trace is attached to this email which shows the whole
sip conversation bef
Hello,
I'm still having this issue and now running the new Kamailio 5.0 branch.
The pcap trace is attached to this email which shows the whole sip
conversation before and after topology hiding.
Has anyone stumbled upon this kind of "SIP 481 Call leg/Transaction does
not exist" error when rou
Hello,
can you grab a pcap (or ngrep output) for all sip messages during such
call? The trace has to be taken on sip server in order to capture the
incoming and outgoing traffic. With partial traffic, it is impossible to
see what is not matching for the transaction.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 19/02/2017
Hello,
I recently started testing topology hiding module on Kamailio and
encountered a problem where B party hangs up, Kamailio can't identify
the ongoing transaction to which the BYE should be related to and
instead of tearing the call down Kamailio just sends back "481 Call
leg/Transaction
Can you provide a pcap with such call, taken on kamailio server,
starting with the first invite to the last sip message of the call?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 14/02/2017 14:58, Annus Fictus wrote:
> Thank you,
>
> I'm searching this parameter without seen it :(
>
> The result is the same:
>
> SIP/2.0 48
Thank you,
I'm searching this parameter without seen it :(
The result is the same:
SIP/2.0 481 Call/Transaction Does Not Exist
the Flow is:
Softphone -> Kamailio -> MediaServer
Mediaserver send BYE to Kamailio and Kamailio Answer with: SIP/2.0 481
Call/Transaction Does Not Exist
Dialog M
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 08:32:27AM -0500, Annus Fictus wrote:
> In the parameter description, I read i have to use "lreq_callee_headers"
> dialog parameter to resolve this kind of issues, but I can't find this
> parameter on the module description.
>
> I'm using Kamailio 4.4.5
It is in the dialog
Hello,
I'm using TOPOH module but I have a problem with Call-ID.
If I use:
modparam("topoh", "mask_callid", 1)
and send the INVITE to a media server, when media server send BYE to
KAMAILIO, Kamailio answer like transaction not exist.
In the parameter description, I read i have to use "lreq_
x Balashov
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 3:12 PM
To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Topoh module also masking Via?
On 05/01/2013 08:54 AM, Grant Bagdasarian wrote:
> Let's say we are using SEMS in SBC mode and letting the traffic pass
> through it, so no new call leg is
On 05/01/2013 08:54 AM, Grant Bagdasarian wrote:
Let's say we are using SEMS in SBC mode and letting the traffic pass
through it, so no new call leg is created.
It doesn't work like that. SEMS always creates a new call leg. If you
are already using SEMS in this manner, you have no need of '
Grant Bagdasarian writes:
> Let's say we are using SEMS in SBC mode and letting the traffic pass
> through it, so no new call leg is created.
my understanding is that sems sbc always creates a new call leg. once
it does it, you don't need k to hide the topology. optionally you can
also let sems
ist
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Topoh module also masking Via?
It does indeed.
On 05/01/2013 06:57 AM, Grant Bagdasarian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The description of this module says it hides the SIP routing headers,
> does this also in
It does indeed.
On 05/01/2013 06:57 AM, Grant Bagdasarian wrote:
Hello,
The description of this module says it hides the SIP routing headers,
does this also include the Via headers?
Grant
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-u
Hello,
The description of this module says it hides the SIP routing headers, does this
also include the Via headers?
Grant
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router
I see, I'll give it a try and check the result then. Thanks.
On 13 July 2011 16:43, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.07.2011 16:56, schrieb Pete Kelly:
> > Hi
> >
> > I have been researching the topoh module which I understand is stateless
> > and can persist across a server restart.
> >
> > Fr
Am 13.07.2011 16:56, schrieb Pete Kelly:
> Hi
>
> I have been researching the topoh module which I understand is stateless
> and can persist across a server restart.
>
> From what I can gather it does this by adding some extra, encrypted
> headers to the INVITE as it passes through the proxy- i
Hi
I have been researching the topoh module which I understand is stateless and
can persist across a server restart.
>From what I can gather it does this by adding some extra, encrypted headers
to the INVITE as it passes through the proxy- is this correct?
If so, can I ask how it handles situati
20 matches
Mail list logo
