> Should I still concern about this log info? > IMO, no. If you see no strange logs for the streams of a specific call, _after_ they have been confirmed and kernelized, you should have no worries. The logs you see before the streams of a specific call are confirmed and kernelized are normal behaviour; try decreasing the rtpengine's log level to reduce the I/O log operations.
Regards, Stefan On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Zodiac <mozillaf...@bupt.edu.cn> wrote: > Hello, friend. > > Actually I set my rtpengine on a physical machine before I sent you my > first reply to you. Problem still exists. > > Now I changed some iptables rules and I can get info from “cat list” under > the table 0. It prints these: > > local inet4 10.109.247.87:30008 > src inet4 10.109.247.87:30058 > dst inet4 10.205.42.195:56220 > stats: 14964 bytes, 87 packets, > 0 errors > RTP payload type 0: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 3: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 8: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 9: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 101: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 105: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 106: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > local inet4 10.109.247.87:30042 > src inet4 10.109.247.87:30066 > dst inet4 10.205.42.195:55744 > stats: 77399 bytes, 68 packets, > 0 errors > RTP payload type 96: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > local inet4 10.109.247.87:30058 > src inet4 10.109.247.87:30008 > dst inet4 10.205.42.195:33875 > stats: 14448 bytes, 84 packets, > 0 errors > RTP payload type 0: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 3: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 8: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 9: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 96: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 97: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 98: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 99: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 101: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 102: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 103: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 105: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 106: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 107: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 108: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 109: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > local inet4 10.109.247.87:30066 > src inet4 10.109.247.87:30042 > dst inet4 10.205.42.195:39177 > stats: 34105 bytes, 34 packets, > 0 errors > RTP payload type 96: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 97: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > RTP payload type 102: 0 bytes, > 0 packets > > But I still got info like this: > > > Dec 26 18:29:30 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30383] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:30 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30403] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:31 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:32 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30382] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:47974 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30342] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:64642 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30342] Kernelizing > media stream: 10.205.42.195:64642 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30402] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:48421 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30382] Kernelizing > media stream: 10.205.42.195:47974 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30374] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:58668 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30374] Kernelizing > media stream: 10.205.42.195:58668 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30402] Kernelizing > media stream: 10.205.42.195:48421 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:58669 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30343] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:64643 > Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30343] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 > duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop > Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30403] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:36390 > Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]: > [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30383] Confirmed > peer address as 10.205.42.195:34933 > > The video call is great without much delay or noise. So any reasons else? > Should I still concern about this log info? > > > 在 2015年12月26日，03:32，Mititelu Stefan <fan...@gmail.com> 写道： > > 1.In fact I am not quite sure about what you mean for the first question. >> I am running the rtpengine daemon downloaded from github, sip >> wise/rtpengine. >> > What does 'dpkg -l | grep rtp' show? > > >> 2.There is nothing prompt on command cat /proc/rtpengine/0/list. The file >> is 0 bytes and empty. >> > That means your streams are not kernelized and all the traffic passes > through user space. I have never run rtpengine software on a virtual > machine so I don't know if it should kernelize the streams in this case; > you could try it. On real hardware, it should. Thus you should get rid of > those errors. > Check point '1.' and make sure that you have the necessary packages > needed for kernelizing the streams referred in [1] (i.e. > ngcp-rtpengine-kernel-dkms, ngcp-rtpengine-iptables) along with the > rtpengine daemon (ngcp-rtpengine-daemon); those should be the minimum > packages needed. Grep the README for "in-kernel" keyword for more info. > > >> 3.Our kamailio is using loose route. >> > I was asking about "strict source" form README [1]. Nothing related to > kamailio's 'lr=' parameter (if that is what you meant). However your > problem is at point 2. > > Regards, > Stefan Mititelu > > [1] https://github.com/sipwise/rtpengine > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ------------------------------------ > 北京邮电大学网络技术研究院 > 网络与交换技术国家重点实验室 > 田军 > +86 18810315790 > mozillaf...@bupt.edu.cn > ------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ 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
