Re: [SR-Users] Wrong Record-Route and Via header fields when TCP is used

Hello, traveling, so not much time available ... I looked over the logs when expected socket is not used, I couldn't spot any message about selecting the socket, so there is a route from them "wrong" socket to the destination. Do you have "mhomed=1" in kamailio.cfg? Cheers, Daniel On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 5:27 PM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com&gt; wrote: > Dear Daniel, > Did you have a chance to check the traces? > > Best regards, > Leonid > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < > leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hello Daniel, >> The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below: >> >> http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz >> >> I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via >> dispatcher in this particular call flow. >> I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are >> defined in the Kamailio configuration. >> Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs >> configured: >> >> 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel >> state UP group default qlen 1000 >> link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >> inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic >> ens32 >> 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue >> state UP group default qlen 1000 >> link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >> inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0 >> >> The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from 192.168.9.103 >> >> If I define: >> listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060 >> listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060 >> listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060 >> listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060 >> >> Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap. >> If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE >> request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap >> >> Best regards, >> Leonid Fainshtein >> Xorcom Ltd >> >> Best regards, >> Leonid Fainshtein >> Xorcom Ltd >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla >> &lt;miconda(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here >> all the >> > log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the >> request >> > till it sends it out. >> > >> > Some further questions: >> > >> > - do you use any force send socket option? >> > - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket >> attribute set? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Daniel >> > >> > On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >> > > Hello, >> > > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump >> and >> > > also in sngrep. >> > > >> > > Thank you, >> > > Leonid >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla >> > > &lt;miconda(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> > >> Hello, >> > >> >> > >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, >> ...) >> > >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> Daniel >> > >> >> > >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >> > >>> 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 >> > >>> &lt;leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com&gt; 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 >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> > >>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> > >> -- >> > >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >> > >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> > >> >> > -- >> > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >> > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> > >> > -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda