Re: [SR-Users] Re-use TCP connections on different transactions

I don’t, but I’ll repeat the test with tcpdump active! I’ll report back shortly On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:50 Daniel-Constantin Mierla &lt;miconda(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hello, > > do you have the pcap with the sip traffic for this case? > > Cheers, > Daniel > On 20.11.19 19:45, Joel Serrano wrote: > > Hello, > > I added to the config file: > > tcp_no_connect=yes > > And with that param, the same test results in a different behavior, but > still not working: > > "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} <core> > [core\/msg_translator.c:161]: check_via_address(): (198.1.54.228, > 198.1.54.228, 0)"} > "message":" ERROR: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm > [..\/..\/core\/forward.h:292]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed"} > "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_fwd.c:1537]: > t_send_branch(): send to 35.191.9.20:56470 (3) failed"} > "message":" WARNING: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_fwd.c:1557]: > t_send_branch(): sending request on branch 0 failed"} > "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_funcs.c:336]: > t_relay_to(): t_forward_nonack returned error -1 (-477)"} > "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_funcs.c:354]: > t_relay_to(): -477 error reply generation delayed "} > > Although, netstats says the connection is active: > > root@sbc-gslb-test-1:~# netstat -putan | grep 56470 > tcp 0 0 10.116.15.237:443 35.191.9.20:56470 > ESTABLISHED 3920/kamailio > root@sbc-gslb-test-1:~# > > > Anyone? > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 9:26 AM Joel Serrano &lt;joel(a)textplus.com&gt; wrote: > >> Bumping this thread up! >> >> I did some more tests trying to narrow down the problem and this is what >> I found...: >> >> On the INVITE, I add the TCP connection information I want to save (for >> later reuse). Snippets: >> >> ...(found this in the misc/examples/pkg/sip-router-oob.cfg, but I >> haven't noticed any changes to the headers or anything)... >> >> # Force response to received connection >> force_rport(); >> if (proto==TCP || proto == TLS) { >> force_tcp_alias(); >> xlog("L_NOTICE", "force_tcp_alias() done"); >> } >> ... >> >> ...(I also have this)... >> >> if (is_first_hop()) { >> xlog("L_NOTICE", "Adding LB info to contact - M=$rm ID=$ci\n"); >> add_contact_alias("$tcp(c_si)", "$tcp(c_sp)", "tls"); >> } >> ... >> >> Which effectively makes the contact look like: >> >> >> <sip:linphone@104.175.176.242:50312;alias=35.191.9.21~50705~3;transport=tls> >> >> ..180.. >> ..200 OK.. >> ..ACK.. >> >> Then, callee ends the call (so the BYE comes from callee to caller), >> when I run handle_ruri_alias() I see in the logs that the everything is >> handled correctly: >> >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} nathelper >> [nathelper.c:1144]: handle_ruri_alias(): setting dst_uri to >> <sip:35.191.9.21:50705;transport=tls>"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} nathelper >> [nathelper.c:1166]: handle_ruri_alias(): rewriting r-uri to >> <sip:linphone@104.175.176.242:50312;transport=tls>"} >> >> But then, Kamalio won't reuse the existing TCP connection and tries to >> create a new one: >> >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:1328]: >> t_newtran(): msg (0x7f85883b14c8) id=27\/1974 global id=25\/1974 T >> start=0xffffffffffffffff"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:497]: >> t_lookup_request(): start searching: hash=63128, isACK=0"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:455]: >> matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction matching failed - via branch >> [z9hG4bK896f.dc04734743b0f0997f39c4fff07c0fbb.0]"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:675]: >> t_lookup_request(): no transaction found"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_hooks.c:336]: >> run_reqin_callbacks_internal(): trans=0x7f8583b17208, callback type 1, id 0 >> entered"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core> >> [core\/crypto\/md5utils.c:67]: MD5StringArray(): MD5 calculated: >> 71c229aff3c0b4f6e9e77c4990b74e5e"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} siputils [checks.c:123]: >> has_totag(): totag found"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} rr [loose.c:1095]: >> check_route_param(): route params checking against >> [;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=tAsjXhyIX;did=7d1.e6a2;nat=yes] (orig: >> [r2=on;lr=on;ftag=tAsjXhyIX;did=7d1.e6a2;nat=yes])"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} rr [loose.c:1101]: >> check_route_param(): params are >> <;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=tAsjXhyIX;did=7d1.e6a2;nat=yes>"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} siputils [checks.c:123]: >> has_totag(): totag found"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core> >> [core\/msg_translator.c:161]: check_via_address(): (198.1.54.228, >> 198.1.54.228, 0)"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core> >> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening >> new one"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core> >> [core\/ip_addr.c:229]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection: >> 35.191.9.21"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core> >> [core\/tcp_main.c:1242]: tcpconn_new(): on port 50705, type 3"} >> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core> >> [core\/tcp_main.c:1561]: tcpconn_add(): hashes: 337:3545:0, 3"} >> >> Am I still missing anything? >> >> Is this a bug and I should open a GH issue? >> >> Any suggestions/comments/ideas are very welcome! >> >> Thanks, >> Joel. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:46 AM Joel Serrano &lt;joel(a)textplus.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hi Yuriy, >>> >>> Thanks for your suggestion, I've tried tcp_accept_aliases=yes in config >>> and I added force_tcp_alias() in the request route, but I haven't seen any >>> changes. >>> >>> All the VIA headers look exactly the same, and I still get this in the >>> logs: >>> >>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11762916 BYE d2T9-YOxYk} <core> >>> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening >>> new one"} >>> >>> >>> The docs say: >>> >>> "force_tcp_alias(port) >>> >>> adds a tcp port alias for the current connection (if tcp). Useful if >>> you want to send all the trafic to port_alias through the same connection >>> this request came from [it could help for firewall or nat traversal]. With >>> no parameters adds the port from the message via as the alias. When the >>> “aliased” connection is closed (e.g. it's idle for too much time), all the >>> port aliases are removed." >>> >>> I tried also using force_tcp_alias(5353) as an example, just to see if >>> I find "5353" added to any headers, but no luck, it wasn't added anywhere.. >>> >>> >>> Any other suggestions? Am I missing something? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Joel. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:53 PM Yuriy Gorlichenko &lt;ovoshlook(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You have to use >>>> tcp_accept_aliases=yes >>>> But this is not enough as this param will be triggered by function >>>> force_tcp_alias() you need to use in the route for request ( for >>>> example record_route or subroutes) >>>> It will add param paramname=<portnum> (I Don't remember specific name) >>>> to Via header that will be used for all dialog requests belongs one >>>> being affected >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 00:52 Joel Serrano, &lt;joel(a)textplus.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I'm setting up a Kamailio instance behind a TCP load balancer (with >>>>> proxy protocol and NAT routing: meaning Kam stays in the flow all the time). >>>>> >>>>> I've managed to get working almost everything we need for our >>>>> service, except for one thing, and that is for Kam to use existing >>>>> connections for subsequent transactions: >>>>> >>>>> Following this example: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [image: image.png] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> EXT & INT represent the external and internal interface of a LB >>>>> between the UAC and Kamailio, using TLS on both legs and proxy protocol. >>>>> >>>>> Transaction 1: INVITE, 100, 180, 183, 200 OK >>>>> >>>>> UAC 1.1.1.1:1111 -> 2.2.2.2:443 (EXT) 3.3.3.3:3333 (INT) -> >>>>> 7.7.7.7:5060 (Kamailio) >>>>> >>>>> Transaction 2: ACK >>>>> >>>>> UAC 1.1.1.1:1112 -> 2.2.2.2:443 (EXT) 4.4.4.4:4444 (INT) -> >>>>> 7.7.7.7:5060 (Kamailio) >>>>> >>>>> Transaction 3: BYE >>>>> >>>>> Kam 7.7.7.7:5060 -> 3.3.3.3:3333 (INT) 2.2.2.2:443 (EXT) -> >>>>> 1.1.1.1:1111 UAC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My problem is with Transaction 3. In this case the BYE is originated >>>>> by the callee, and Kam has to send it to the caller. As the TCP load >>>>> balancer is between Kam and the UAC, Kam has to send it to the LB so then >>>>> the LB can forward it back to the UAC. This works well for msgs that belong >>>>> to the same transaction (INVITE, 100, 180, 183, 200 OK) but it fails when >>>>> they don't belong to the same transaction. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to the newly added $tcp(c_si) and $tcp(c_sp) pseudovars, I can >>>>> save the internal IP:Port of the LB, so I can send stuff later to it, my >>>>> problem is that Kam doesn't seem to allow this? >>>>> >>>>> On the original INVITE, I use the following to save where I have to >>>>> reach the UAC: >>>>> >>>>> add_contact_alias("$tcp(c_si)", "$tcp(c_sp)", "tls"); >>>>> >>>>> Then, handle_ruri_alias() will take care of setting $du to the >>>>> correct (internal LB) IP:Port so I can reach the UAC, this works. >>>>> >>>>> My problem is that Kamailio doesn't identify that there is a valid >>>>> existing TLS connection still up (from the INVITE), and tries to create a >>>>> new one (and this obviously doesn't gives all sorts of problems). >>>>> >>>>> So when I run handle_ruri_alias(), and $du is set to 3.3.3.3:3333 >>>>> (from the example above), instead of using the existing connection, >>>>> Kamailio tries to create a new one. >>>>> >>>>> I have a log statement right before with the result of >>>>> tcp_conid_state(1) (the connid is 1 for this connection) and the $rc is 1 >>>>> (Connection is OK), but when I tell Kamailio it has to use it I get this in >>>>> the logs: >>>>> >>>>> DEBUG: {1 11726467 BYE gqR1qqNK8B} <core> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: >>>>> tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening new one"} >>>>> >>>>> And then the problems begin... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have tried playing around with: >>>>> >>>>> tcp_reuse_port >>>>> tcp_connection_match >>>>> >>>>> But no luck..! >>>>> >>>>> I also thought it could be a problem of the connection being created >>>>> on one worker, and a different worker handling BYE transaction, so tested >>>>> with children=1 and tcp_children=1, but still same problem. >>>>> >>>>> A more detailed log: >>>>> >>>>> In blue my log statement checking for the status of conid "1", in red >>>>> Kam not being able to find it, although it exists (as validated >>>>> by tcp_conid_state(), and even in netstat I can see the connection >>>>> established). In this log, 35.191.0.66:60271 would be the equivalent >>>>> of 3.3.3.3:3333 and 104.175.176.242:28157 would be 1.1.1.1:1111 from >>>>> the example above. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1657]: _tcpconn_find(): found connection by id: 1"} >>>>> "message":" NOTICE: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <script>: JOEL TEST >>>>> New request - M=BYE TCP STATUS:1 ID=5-LX4GdI9X"} >>>>> ... >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} nathelper >>>>> [nathelper.c:1144]: handle_ruri_alias(): setting dst_uri to >>>>> <sip:35.191.0.66:60271;transport=tls>"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} nathelper >>>>> [nathelper.c:1166]: handle_ruri_alias(): rewriting r-uri to >>>>> <sip:linphone@104.175.176.242:28157;transport=tls>"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:1328]: >>>>> t_newtran(): msg (0x7f3c884259d0) id=534\/18664 global id=532\/18664 T >>>>> start=0xffffffffffffffff"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:497]: >>>>> t_lookup_request(): start searching: hash=63496, isACK=0"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:455]: >>>>> matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction matching failed - via branch >>>>> [z9hG4bK808f.eee2444f92a02cb33e1b7a21f20bc6bb.0]"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:675]: >>>>> t_lookup_request(): no transaction found"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_hooks.c:336]: >>>>> run_reqin_callbacks_internal(): trans=0x7f3c83b8c598, callback type 1, id 0 >>>>> entered"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/crypto\/md5utils.c:67]: MD5StringArray(): MD5 calculated: >>>>> 3071029feb05962b26b53a9664a14210"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} siputils >>>>> [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} rr [loose.c:1095]: >>>>> check_route_param(): route params checking against >>>>> [;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=Eb~TbdfTA;did=cab.01e2;nat=yes] (orig: >>>>> [r2=on;lr=on;ftag=Eb~TbdfTA;did=cab.01e2;nat=yes])"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} rr [loose.c:1101]: >>>>> check_route_param(): params are >>>>> <;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=Eb~TbdfTA;did=cab.01e2;nat=yes>"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} siputils >>>>> [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/msg_translator.c:161]: check_via_address(): (198.1.54.228, >>>>> 198.1.54.228, 0)"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening >>>>> new one"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/ip_addr.c:229]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection: >>>>> 35.191.0.66"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1242]: tcpconn_new(): on port 60271, type 3"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core> >>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1561]: tcpconn_add(): hashes: 1446:2350:0, 5"} >>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tls >>>>> [tls_server.c:199]: tls_complete_init(): completing tls connection >>>>> initialization"} >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So time to seek help from the community, any >>>>> suggestions/ideas/comments? Sorry if all this sounds confusing, I've tried >>>>> my best to put in text the whole scenario in and "understandable" way... >>>>> >>>>> Is this even doable? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Joel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>>>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- www.kamailioworld.com > >