Hello,
do you have mhomed enabled? Are there routes from both IP addresses to
the destination?
IIRC, not that long ago I pointed to some article about linux not
ensuring what would be the local ip used for tcp connections when many
interfaces are having routes to destination. I couldn't find it quickly
now, though.
What you can try is to force advertised address with:
listen=tcp:1.2.3.4:5060 advertise 1.2.3.4:5060
Cheers,
Daniel
On 05/05/15 15:02, Mickael Marrache wrote:
Here, there are 2 interfaces but only the VIP should be used. Also,
the INVITE exits the same interface it entered (i.e. the VIP) but
exits with a different source port (because of the TCP connection).
I tried disabling double RR, I only see the VIP record route now,
however I still see the top Via with the non-VIP interface although
the INVITE is forwarded to the proxy using the VIP interface.
*From:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] *On
Behalf Of *Alex Balashov
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:31 PM
*To:* Mickael Marrache; sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
*Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Double record routes
That is normal behaviour if double RR is enabled in the RR module; two
Record-Routes will be added if Kamailio is multihomed and the invite
exits a different interface to the one it entered.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web:
http://www.evaristesys.com/,
http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
*From: *Mickael Marrache
*Sent: *Tuesday, May 5, 2015 08:27
*To: *sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
*Reply To: *Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
*Subject: *[SR-Users] Double record routes
Hi,
We are adding TCP support to our load balancer and for some reason it
adds two record route headers.
The instance have two IP addresses on which it binds: one if the VIP
address and the second is the non-VIP address.
I explicitly set the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter with the VIP address so
that it is used as source address for outbound TCP connection.
So, we get the following INVITE going from the load balancer to a proxy:
T 2015/05/05 12:08:49.715822 VIP:54667 -> PROXY:5060 [AP]
INVITE sip:123@mycompany.com SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:NONVIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Record-Route: <sip:VIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
NONVIP;branch=z9hG4bK6f4.688efa90a17e02181ef7a11fecf8bb72.0;i=3.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
1.1.1.1:4598;received=2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKmqFaCxNo6m3f5LW4;rport=40020.
You can see the INVITE is sent from the VIP address (as specified
using the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter). However, the added Via
corresponds to the non-VIP address. Also, you can see the two record
route headers added for both addresses.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Mickael
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany -
http://www.kamailioworld.com