Hi,
This is expected. The point of DMQ is to enable dynamic scaling without
having to define every node in advance in Kamailio config.
You should not use dmq_is_from_node() with dmq_handle_message() - it is not
intended to be a security check for KDMQ messages, but for other messages
replicated directly in your config (e.g. REGISTER).
For KDMQ, you should listen on a dedicated IP and/or port and lock down at
network/firewall level. Then your DMQ handling block should look something
like:
if (method == "KDMQ") {
if ($Rp == 5070) {
dmq_handle_message();
} else {
drop;
}
}
Do this help? Or is there something else you're looking to achieve?
Cheers,
Charles
On 22 July 2015 at 15:22, Asgaroth <00asgarot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have an issue with the dmq_is_from_node() function, whereby it does not
> detect a node is on the bus if it has been removed from its "table" due to
> previously failed, i presume, ping requests.
>
> I have the following snippet in my main routing block:
>
> if(is_method("KDMQ")) {
> if (dmq_is_from_node()) {
> dmq_handle_message();
> exit;
> } else {
> xlog("L_INFO", "KDMQ message recieved from node not on our
> bus!! ($si:$sp) Dropping.");
> exit;
> }
> }
>
> I have the following dmq module parameters enabled for dmq:
>
> modparam("dmq", "server_address", DMQ_ADDRESS)
> modparam("dmq", "notification_address", "sip:lb.domain.com:5060")
> modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1)
> modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4)
>
> DMQ_ADDRESS is set to each of the addresses in the lb.domain.com for each
> local kamailio instance
>
> lb.domain.com resolves to the following addresses:
> 10.6.0.109
> 10.6.0.110
> 10.6.0.111
>
> If I start up the 1st instance of kamailio and do not start the other 2
> within the default ping timout then I get the expected log message of dmq
> removing the nodes from its table, for example:
>
> kamailio[26657]: ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:588]:
> notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.6.0.111:5060
> because of failed request
> kamailio[26657]: ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:588]:
> notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.6.0.110:5060
> because of failed request
>
> However, if I then start one, or both, of the other nodes, then the KDMQ
> requests are dropped due to my snippet above, I presume, because
> dmq_is_from_node() checks its "active" table. See messages below as an
> example of the above snippet in action:
>
> kamailio[26656]: INFO: <script>: KDMQ message recieved from node not on
> our bus!! (10.6.0.110:5060) Dropping.
> kamailio[26656]: INFO: <script>: KDMQ message recieved from node not on
> our bus!! (10.6.0.111:5060) Dropping.
>
> Is this expected behaviour from the dmq_is_from_node() function? I would
> have expected it to always check the addresses resolved in the notification
> address, or am I using this function in a manner not intended.
>
> Any suggestions/tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
--
*** We're rebranding! Learn more here
<http://www.sipcentric.com/2015/07/were-rebranding/> ***
www.sipcentric.com
Follow us on twitter @sipcentric <http://twitter.com/sipcentric>
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered
office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street,
Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
