Re: [SR-Users] Port 5060 omitted in Record-Route

Hi Joel, thanks for verification, it was ok to me when using the default 5060 for udp/tcp with port omitted in the RR, the calls should be routed properly. But it don't work if i use the same port 5060 for tls (i know this is a bit weird, but i want to re-use the port due to customer firewall restriction), the port is still omitted and `ACK/BYE` routed wrongly to *MY_ADDR;transport=tls* (5061). I only want to make sure whether it is not able to explicitly add 5060 port to the RR when using tls or i just make it wrong with my configuration. rgds, Loi Dang Thanh Phone : +84. 774.735.448 Email : loi.dangthanh(a)gmail.com <mailto:loi.dangthanh@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Joel Serrano &lt;joel(a)textplus.com <mailto:joel@textplus.com>> wrote: By SIP definition if the port is the default (5060 for udp/tcp, 5061 for tls) it's not mandatory, that's why if you choose any other port you specifically see it in the RR. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:30 AM Lợi Đặng &lt;loi.dangthanh(a)gmail.com <mailto:loi.dangthanh@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, i was using kamailio 4.2.1 located in 2 networks listen = tcp:MY_ADDR:5060 advertise MY_ADDR:5060 listen = tls:MY_ADDR:5061 advertise PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061 when the call made from the inside network to out side, running `record_route()` resulted in 2 Record-Route headers added (enable_double_rr=1) Record-Route: PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061;transport=tls;lr Record-Route: MY_ADDR;transport=tcp;lr That was totally fine omitting the port in the first Record-Route when using tcp (or udp) on the first realm, but when i start switching to tls, it caused trouble Record-Route: PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061;transport=tls;lr Record-Route: MY_ADDR;transport=tls;lr The client is then told to send ACK/BYE to `MY_ADDR;transport=tls` located at `MY_ADDR:5061` as per rfc3263, then the call would failed. I had another try with `record_route_preset("PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061;transport=tls", "MY_ADDR:5060;transport=tls");`, it really did add what i want with explicit 5060 port on RR, `ACK/BYE` travel on the correct path, but `loose_route()` only consumes the local `Route` header (it should consume 2). So my assumption is to stick with `record_route()` function to make `loose_route()` work properly. I tried using another port on the local realm, e.g: 5062 and the port is explicitly added to the Record-Route header `MY_ADDR:5062;transport=tls;lr` So is `5060` couldn't be explicitly added to the inbound Record-Route, or i just missed something? Any help will be appreciated. P/S: I also tried 4.4.7 and it still omit my 5060 port in the RR. rgds, Loi Dang Thanh Phone : +84. 774.735.448 Email : loi.dangthanh(a)gmail.com <mailto:loi.dangthanh@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users