<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>>>> wrote:
Brandon Armstead schrieb:
Klaus,
So I took you and Inaki's input and
essentially
constructed a setup like so after the
lookup("location") call:
if(isbflagset(1)){
$du = null;
$rd = "P1";
} else if(isbflagset(2)){
$du = null;
$rd = "P2";
} else if(isbflagset(3)){
$du = null;
$rd = "P3";
} else if(isbflagset(4)){
$du = null;
$rd = "P4";
}
1. The above code has to be in the branch_route
block -
otherwise multiple registrations of a single
user are not
handled correctly.
2. you are rewriting the RURI. You should not do
that
as some
clients wants to the in the RURI the Contact
provided
during
REGISTER.
3. probably you use fix_nated_register() to
store the
public
IP:port of the client too. After lookup, this
information is
written to DURI. Thus, by setting $du you overwrite
this info.
You should put it into a special header so that
you can
restore it in the other proxy.
Here a snippet how it should work (untested, no
warranty): ( I
use the term "originating" proxy for the proxy which
received
the INVITE and the term "serving" proxy for the
proxy which
handles the connection/registration of a certain SIP
client).
e.g:
Alice -----INVITE-----> P1------->P2----->Bob2
/ \
/ \
/ V
V P3---->Bob3
Bob1
Bob's client Bob1 is connected to P1.
Bob's client Bob2 is connected to P2.
Bob's client Bob3 is connected to P3.
So, P1 is the originating proxy. P2 is the
serving proxy of
Bob2. ....
We do NAT traversal (note: we must not call
fix_nated_contact() for messages sent between the
proxies!):
the originating proxy for the call-leg to the
caller, the
serving proxy for the call-leg to the callee.
The RTP proxy will be managed by the originating
proxy
only.
route{
if (loose_route()) {
... additional loose route processing...
if (check_route_param("rtpproxy=yes")) {
force_rtp_proxy();
setbflag(7);
}
# downstream: in-dialog request is in the same
direction as the
# initial request
if ( (check_route_param("nat=caller") &&
is_direction("downstream"))
|| (check_route_param("nat=callee") &&
is_direction("upstream"))) {
fix_nated_contact();
} else if (check_route_param("nat=both") {
fix_nated_contact();
setbflag(8);
} else {
setbflag(8);
}
t_on_reply("1");
t_relay();
exit();
}
...
# I am proxy 1
if ((src_ip=ip.of.proxy.2) ||
(src_ip=ip.of.proxy.3)...) {
# request comes from other proxy, that means I
am the
# serving proxy
# do not lookup(), RURI is already set and
# DURI is provided in our X-DURI header
$du = $header(X-DURI);
# we do not care about an RTP proxy because
that's the
task
of the
# proxy which performed the lookup() (the
originating
proxy)
# add some record-route cookie to mark that we
should
perform
# SIP NAT traversal for the callee
add_rr_param(";nat=callee");
# activate reply_route to fix_nated_contact of
callee
setbflag(8); # flag 8 = fix contact
t_on_reply("1");
record_route();
t_relay();
exit;
}
...
# a new request - thus I am the originating proxy
if ($dU looks like phone number) {
... route to Gateway....
exit;
}
if (!lookup("location")) {
sl_send_reply("404","not found");
exit;
}
# activate branch route to have dedicated
routing per
branch
t_on_branch("1");
# activate reply route to activate RTP proxy
t_on_reply("1");
# NAT traversal
fix_nated_contact();
record_route();
t_relay();
exit;
}
branch_route[1]{
if(isbflagset(1)){
# oh, that's me
# add some record-route cookie to mark that we
should
perform
# SIP NAT traversal for the callee and caller
add_rr_param(";nat=both");
# add some record-route cookie to mark that we are
# in charge for the RTP proxy
add_rr_param(";rtpproxy=yes");
force_rtp_proxy();
setbflag(7); # flag 7 = RTP proxy
} else {
# add some record-route cookie to mark that we
should
perform
# SIP NAT traversal for the caller
add_rr_param(";nat=caller");
# we have to route the request to the serving
proxy
# write DURI in the header
append_hf("X-DURI: $du");
if(isbflagset(2)){
$du = sip:ip.of.proxy.2;transport=udp;
} else if(isbflagset(3)){
$du = sip:ip.of.proxy.3;transport=udp;
} else if(isbflagset(4)){
$du = sip:ip.of.proxy.4;transport=udp;
}
}
}
reply_route[1]{
if (isbflagset(7) && has_body("application/sdp")) {
force_rtp_proxy()
}
if (isbflagset(8)) {
fix_nated_contact()
}
}
Note: this code does not care about the received
socket
of the
proxy. Thus it works if the proxy listens only
on one port.
regards
klaus
On each Proxy, I changed the code appropriately
excluding
the Proxy from itself (so it does not forward to
itself).
I'm noticing weird behavior however as it
seems as if
what is happening is it created other issues
such as:
[INCOMING SERVER] -> P1 -> P2 -> P1 -> (loop?)
Also I setup this test amongst two development
servers (in
which case it worked without issues). Once I
included in
more development instances into the ring it
seemed
as if
the flags were being set when they should
not be?
I.e. I placed a call FROM UA1 (with bflag 5 SET)
From the
above example configuration ^ code. If you
notice
(flag
5) is missing. To UA2 (Flag 3), again this
looked
to be
doing some strange things such as acting as
if another
flag was set when it should not have been, thus
forwarding
to the wrong proxy or the wrong proxy order. Do
you guys
have any further thoughts or input on this?
Thanks!
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Klaus Darilion
<
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>>>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
<mailto:
klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>>>>> wrote:
Hi Brandon!
Back to the original email ....
Brandon Armstead schrieb:
Hello guys,
Is there a method upon using
lookup("location")
to also pull
out the "socket" information for the
original
location the UAC
registered to, for scenarios of this
example:
P1 & P2 share same usrloc database.
UA1 registers to P1
UA2 registers to P2
UA1 calls UA2
UA1 invites -> P1 -> INVITES -> UA2
(bypassing P2
-- where the
actual nat binding is).
Now upon P1 looking up usrloc for UA2, I
would like
to recognize
that P1 is not the Proxy to deliver the
call, and
forward the
request to P2 to send to UA2.
So currently I have:
UA1 INVITE -> P1 INVITE -> UA2
I wish to have:
UA1 INVITE -> P1 INVITE -> P2 INVITE
-> UA2
Is there an easy method to do this?
I have been
looking at the
new nat traversal module it looks
like it is
doable
with this
(any further input as far as that?).
Also is it
possible with
the classic Nat Helper module? Any
input is
appreciated, thanks!
I think the nat_traversal module can not
help you in
this case, nor
nathelper.
One possibility would be to spoof at P1
the IP
address
of P2 -
nevertheless this would cause the reply
sent back to
P2, but the
transaction is created in P1. (and you
need to hack
Kamailio for IP
spoofing).
Another easy solution would be: In P1 set
a certain
branch-flag when
the client registers, e.g. bflag 1. In P2
set a
certain
branch-flag
when the client registers, e.g. bflag 2.
Now, if a user is called, just make a
lookup() and
t_relay. Further
in the branch_route check if:
in P1: isbflagset(2) --> forward to P2
in P2: isbflagset(1) --> forward to P1
klaus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>>>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>>>>
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:
Users@lists.kamailio.org>>
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users