When my Zulu client registers, I frequently get a “SSL_shutdown” error right after that, followed by plenty of: sip_reliable_xmit: Serious Network Trouble; __sip_xmit returns error for pkt data
What could be wrong?
== WebSocket connection from '192.168.1.254:55206' for protocol 'sip' accepted using version '13'
-- Registered SIP '905314' at 192.168.1.254:55206
[2017-04-13 14:45:39] ERROR: tcptls.c:397 tcptls_stream_close: SSL_shutdown() failed: 5
== WebSocket connection from '192.168.1.254:53314' forcefully closed due to fatal write error
[2017-04-13 14:46:20] ERROR: chan_sip.c:4204 __sip_reliable_xmit: Serious Network Trouble; __sip_xmit returns error for pkt data
[2017-04-13 14:46:24] NOTICE: chan_sip.c:29804 sip_poke_noanswer: Peer '905314' is now UNREACHABLE! Last qualify: 182
[2017-04-13 14:46:34] ERROR: chan_sip.c:4204 __sip_reliable_xmit: Serious Network Trouble; __sip_xmit returns error for pkt data
[2017-04-13 14:46:48] ERROR: chan_sip.c:4204 __sip_reliable_xmit: Serious Network Trouble; __sip_xmit returns error for pkt data
@tonyclewis Then perhaps the Zulu documentation such as the FAQ covering the Zulu softphone troubleshooting should say this. Considering that FreePBX 13 is listed to support Asterisk 11 and 13 one would assume that all commercial modules in FreePBX 13 would do the same. The fact that Asterisk 13 is required for proper support for the Zulu Softphone should be something noted on public documents for said module and feature of the module.
Since the launch of Zulu in late 2015 this is the first time I’ve heard or seen anything in regards to the Zulu Softphone requiring Asterisk 13 to either work properly or get proper support for it.This seems it’s not a minor detail to leave out as it would have probably stopped people from installing Zulu, asking for support as to why things don’t work and getting a “Well you really should be on Asterisk 13 for this to work and get support for it” as the answer. Stating that in the beginning before the user even installs Zulu so they know they need to be on Asterisk 13 would save everyone involved trouble.
You are correct. I am sorry that was missed. We will get it added now. Its always hard to remember to things like this when their are so many Asterisk versions and two SIP Drivers plus FreePBX Versions.
FreePBX Distro has defaulted to Asterisk 13 for a good year now and Zulu came out with a softphone only 6 months or so ago.
Tony, I don’t mean to sound like I’m harping here, but your statement is not only incorrect it makes Sangoma sound rather incompetent. First, the FreePBX Distro does offer a choice of Asterisk 11 or 13 when you install it. So how the FreePBX Distro has “defaulted” to Asterisk 13 is hard to follow. Do you mean to say “development for FreePBX Distro has defaulted to Asterisk 13”? Because there is nothing in the public eye that says the FreePBX Distro needs/requires Asterisk 13 for everything to run properly.
Second, there have been LTS and Standard releases of Asterisk since 2006. There have been two SIP drivers available for 2.5 years. Are you saying that FreePBX/PBXact which is built on top of Asterisk can’t keep up with with Asterisk versions and SIP drivers after all this time?! In regards to FreePBX there are what 3 versions? 13 (Stable), 14 (RC) and 15 (I’m sure is in development). If you consider FreePBX and PBXact two separate beasts then there are six versions, give or take.
Iff the hope of the “There are too many versions to keep track/up with” excuse was to garner “Yeah, there is a lot to keep track of, I get it” type of response it was exactly the opposite. Saying that there are “too many versions…” with the fact that Sangoma seems to be developing multiple versions of their PBX at the same time, while Asterisk has maintained a LTS/Standard flow for a decade and pretty consistent with two SIP drivers for the past 2.5 years. That begs the question, where are the “too many versions” coming from?
Honestly, Tony. You took a respectable, acceptable answer of “We made a mistake. We missed it and are correcting it” and totally flushed it down the toilet with the “Too many versions…” reasoning/excuse. That statement immediately makes it sound like there is no responsibility taken for the mistake AND it makes it sound like Sangoma is too disorganized and/or overwhelmed with the fact there are multiple versions of the PBX being developed and/or maintained and it’s just too much to keep track of.
I think you have read way to much here. I said I was sorry and we missed documenting it and just was commenting keeping track of all the variation of what a user can use with Asteirsk versions, FreePBX versions and SIP drivers can be alot of remember to keep things always updated on what works where.
Zulu was built for PBXact UC which only ships with Asterisk 13 so when we decided to offer it for standalone FreePBX it was missed to comment about Asterisk 13 a requirement for the SoftPhone. If someone bought Zulu and cant upgrade to 13 send me a PM and will fully refund you. Lets not make a mountain out of a small mistake.
Lastly my comment on Asterisk 13 being default is for the FreePBX Distro. Asterisk 13 is what it defaults to and you have to select Asterisk 11 at the bottom of the screen when installing if you do not want 13.
Tony, perhaps you are right. I might be reading into your statement too much, I can see that. Please let me explain why. There is an underlying issue here in regards to the documentation management for FreePBX and many of things related to it. To support this statement, please let me highlight a few instances.
The FreePBX Wiki is still filled with documentation relating to FreePBX 12.
The new DHCP Server feature within System Admin. There is ZERO documentation for this anywhere. I even opened a ticket two months ago requesting it. No movement.
This instance, itself. I replied to a two month old post about this requirement. There is still nothing that supports it in the documentation.
Yes, in this instance it is being corrected but it took this conversation to make it happen. I get that there can be a lag in documentation when a new feature or upgrade happens, I really do. However, when that lag starts to get to three, six or over a year. There is a problem that needs to be addressed.
The “Oh we didn’t document this new feature or change” issue can happen. It does happen. I totally am aware (been the cause) of that and accept that. When it does, you address it and move forward. But you just can’t view them as one and done, isolated instances though. When they are happening frequently and consistently they are not isolated issues, they are part of a bigger issue.
So in closing, I don’t want to focus on the past. Documentation didn’t get updated. The who, what, why of it doesn’t matter. I want to focus on going forward and address the existing issue of lack of documentation. We can all agree that existing documentation needs to be over hauled and updated? I hope we can agree that a more consistent process for maintaining documentation needs to happen. How can we do that? What needs to be done? I am, as I have constantly said, more than willing to be part of the solution not the problem. So let’s work this out and put something together. I’m sure there are many in the community, like me, eager and ready to help Sangoma help us.
I suggest you start a thread about your concerns on documentation as a whole as you are now hijacking this thread to talk about documentation as a whole. This issue has been resolved and the wiki under Zulu Softphone has been updated.