3 Feb
2018
3 Feb
'18
10:13 a.m.
Le 2018-02-02 à 23:12, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Emmanuel,
I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a
different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd
say that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if
both route headers are equal.
I don't think this is the correct behavior to add
to identical SIP URI
in the route set.
As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some
kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix
loose route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).
We will post a ticket
and submit a patch to fix loose_route() instead.
Don't want to add some strange cases to out script which is already
quite complex.
Regards,
Timmo
Emmanuel
On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU" <emmanuel.buu(a)ives.fr
<mailto:emmanuel.buu@ives.fr>> wrote:
Hi Timmo,
We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by
the proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single
route. This is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the
alternate port 5066 on the same interfacec and using the same
protocol (UDP). To us, this seems logical.
Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are
on the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you
send us an exemple of Route: header?
Emmanuel BUU
IVèS
Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so
the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by
setting a modparam: enable_double_rr.
Would this be a solution for you?
Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan
On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" <thomas.carvello(a)ives.fr
<mailto:thomas.carvello@ives.fr>> wrote:
Thank you for you answer.
We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt
change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has
no influence in this case.
In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the
socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be
located in the RR module and the loose_route() function.
In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function
set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is
mentioned in the route set of the ACK message
But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only
ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is
OK). In this case, we get a trace:
"No next URI found"
and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when
t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first
socket defined in our configuration instead.
At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We
believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose()
should force the send_socket even though we have only one
route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and
there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior.
Are we missing something?
Thank you for you time,
Thomas
Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users Hi
Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by
what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the
message 200 Ok
Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
<thomas.carvello(a)ives.fr> <mailto:thomas.carvello@ives.fr>:
Hello,
i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network*
interfaces, one on a private network and on the public
Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060
and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice
and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both
users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange
on the proxy server.
We have set the parameter mhomed=1
When Alice calls Bob, we have
Alice Proxy Bob
src=5063 dst=5066
INVITE ------------------>
src=5066
------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060
dst=5066
<------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060
dst=5063
<------- 200 OK --------- src=5066
src=5063 dst=5066
-------- ACK ----------->
*src=5060 (blocked by NAT)*
------ ACK-----x dst=5060
The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port.
Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be
established.
For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is
correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend
to use 5060 as local port?
Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure
that multi homed is handled correctly.
I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
I have investigated the code for selection socket and
what is the logic of this selection ?
/*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as
src port if the user is registered using port 5066
instead of 5066?*
/
Thank you for your time.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
Best
Evgeniy
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>