Hi
I have a kimailio box that receives messages from one interface and send it from another interface and I use dispatcher module successfully.
Now I assigned an I range to Linux loopback interface through Linux kernel anyip feature. And I can ping the range.
ip -4 route add local 192.168.0.0/24 dev lo
I want to send messages from source of the ip in this range but kamailio cant do this in the right way.
I added this two directives to kamailio.cfg:
mhomed=yes
ip_free_bind = 1
and when I want to use an ip from the list I use
$fs=”udp:192.168.0.120:5060”;
With no luck
If I use
force_send_socket(udp:192.168.0.120:5060);
kamailio returns an error
bad force_send_socket argument: 192.168.0.120:5060 (kamailio doesn't listen on it)
and if I add listen directive for one ip like:
listen=udp:192.168.0.120:5060
everything works fine but I want to be able to use any ip from list not just one ip.
Thanks.
This is probably not supported yet
Thanks for quick response I know this linux feature is not supported in kamailio and because of that I put this feature request here. Thanks.
Is there any limitation that stops you from using multiple `listen=` directives?
In fact, given enough resources, is there even a limit on the number of `listen=` directives that Kamailio can handle?
I'm really curious about the usecase you see here, and how it differs from what is achievable with net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind and or a bgp daemon on your host .
I know they are not the same, but I can't (right now ) think of a reason I'd want to bind to a whole subnet.
Maybe something TLS related, but in that case you have to do all the TLS config, so is avoiding the listen line really a big advantage?
I'm honestly curious though
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023, 12:02 pm Joel Serrano, ***@***.***> wrote:
Is there any limitation that stops you from using multiple listen= directives?
In fact, given enough resources, is there even a limit on the number of listen= directives that Kamailio can handle?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/3394#issuecomment-1474588295, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALQR65OKEQDCDYCST6SWUTW4UJSFANCNFSM6AAAAAAV5HE5GI . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
I think here is case like enterprise PBX in the cloud. Many PBX should have own IP. Example to create outbound call to another PBX required whitelist PBX IP address.
Before somebody asked, what is prevents you to bind on 65536 IP addresses (/16 network). Could answer?
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023, 10:15 AM Jay Binks ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm really curious about the usecase you see here, and how it differs from what is achievable with net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind and or a bgp daemon on your host .
I know they are not the same, but I can't (right now ) think of a reason I'd want to bind to a whole subnet.
Maybe something TLS related, but in that case you have to do all the TLS config, so is avoiding the listen line really a big advantage?
I'm honestly curious though
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023, 12:02 pm Joel Serrano, ***@***.***> wrote:
Is there any limitation that stops you from using multiple listen= directives?
In fact, given enough resources, is there even a limit on the number of listen= directives that Kamailio can handle?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/3394#issuecomment-1474588295%3E,
or unsubscribe <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALQR65OKEQDCDYCST6SWUTW4U...
. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/3394#issuecomment-1474769504, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATRRQKUBTBPBQ5S6PGA673W4VVJ7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAV5HE5GI . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
AFAIR, depending on the number of `children` or `socket_workers` combined with the amount `listen=` and the `PKG_SIZE` setting, RAM would be the limitation.
In an example where you have say 16mb of `PKG_SIZE ` combined with `children=1` you would need (16mb * 1 children * 65535 IPs) 1TB of RAM for a /16.
Sure, having a complete network on individual workers will waste a lot of memory. Just to add a bit more context to this request, this is the feature in question [link](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i...).
This blog post provides some good summary of the option and also explain the related IP_FREEBIND option: [link](https://oswalt.dev/2022/02/non-local-address-binds-in-linux/)
This issue is stale because it has been open 6 weeks with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 2 weeks.
Closed #3394 as not planned.
@pumper could you help me understand how to bind to `127.0.0.0/8`. At [https://oswalt.dev/2022/02/non-local-address-binds-in-linux/%5D(https://oswa...) described use for bind to any IP ```c import socket s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) s.bind(("0.0.0.0", 0)) ``` But not for network addr with mask. Hope you can suggest.
-
github-actions[bot] -
Henning Westerholt
-
Jay Binks
-
Joel Serrano
-
mohsen
-
sergey-safarov