8 Jul
2019
8 Jul
'19
8:21 p.m.
I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.:
https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html):
"check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there should be
some differences between the two servers.
If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out the
traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing rules that
allow going from that interface to the target address."
Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table:
default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static
10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1
172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1
192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31
The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and sent
out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31).
I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The
request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route
fields...
Best regards,
Leonid
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein
<leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:
Hi,
Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different networks.
I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is implicitly set to
"1".
The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1
The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31
The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18
According to the "rr" module documentation, function record_route()
should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is
accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This works as
expected in case of UDP protocol:
INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191>
Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d
But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks like this:
INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1>
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f
There are two problems there:
a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted
b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address
instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN
trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B".
Is it a bug?
Best regards,
Leonid Fainshtein