5 May
2015
5 May
'15
3:26 p.m.
Hi,
We are adding TCP support to our load balancer and for some reason it adds
two record route headers.
The instance have two IP addresses on which it binds: one if the VIP address
and the second is the non-VIP address.
I explicitly set the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter with the VIP address so that
it is used as source address for outbound TCP connection.
So, we get the following INVITE going from the load balancer to a proxy:
T 2015/05/05 12:08:49.715822 VIP:54667 -> PROXY:5060 [AP]
INVITE sip:123@mycompany.com SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:NONVIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Record-Route: <sip:VIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
NONVIP;branch=z9hG4bK6f4.688efa90a17e02181ef7a11fecf8bb72.0;i=3.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
1.1.1.1:4598;received=2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKmqFaCxNo6m3f5LW4;rport=40020.
You can see the INVITE is sent from the VIP address (as specified using the
tcp_source_ipv4 parameter). However, the added Via corresponds to the
non-VIP address. Also, you can see the two record route headers added for
both addresses.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Mickael
4:02 p.m.
Here, there are 2 interfaces but only the VIP should be used. Also, the INVITE exits the
same interface it entered (i.e. the VIP) but exits with a different source port (because
of the TCP connection).
I tried disabling double RR, I only see the VIP record route now, however I still see the
top Via with the non-VIP interface although the INVITE is forwarded to the proxy using the
VIP interface.
From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Mickael Marrache; sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Double record routes
That is normal behaviour if double RR is enabled in the RR module; two Record-Routes will
be added if Kamailio is multihomed and the invite exits a different interface to the one
it entered.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
From: Mickael Marrache
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 08:27
To: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Reply To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: [SR-Users] Double record routes
Hi,
We are adding TCP support to our load balancer and for some reason it adds two record
route headers.
The instance have two IP addresses on which it binds: one if the VIP address and the
second is the non-VIP address.
I explicitly set the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter with the VIP address so that it is used as
source address for outbound TCP connection.
So, we get the following INVITE going from the load balancer to a proxy:
T 2015/05/05 12:08:49.715822 VIP:54667 -> PROXY:5060 [AP]
INVITE sip:123@mycompany.com SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:NONVIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Record-Route: <sip:VIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP NONVIP;branch=z9hG4bK6f4.688efa90a17e02181ef7a11fecf8bb72.0;i=3.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
1.1.1.1:4598;received=2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKmqFaCxNo6m3f5LW4;rport=40020.
You can see the INVITE is sent from the VIP address (as specified using the
tcp_source_ipv4 parameter). However, the added Via corresponds to the non-VIP address.
Also, you can see the two record route headers added for both addresses.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Mickael
10:13 p.m.
Hello,
do you have mhomed enabled? Are there routes from both IP addresses to
the destination?
IIRC, not that long ago I pointed to some article about linux not
ensuring what would be the local ip used for tcp connections when many
interfaces are having routes to destination. I couldn't find it quickly
now, though.
What you can try is to force advertised address with:
listen=tcp:1.2.3.4:5060 advertise 1.2.3.4:5060
Cheers,
Daniel
On 05/05/15 15:02, Mickael Marrache wrote:
Here, there are 2 interfaces but only the VIP should be used. Also,
the INVITE exits the same interface it entered (i.e. the VIP) but
exits with a different source port (because of the TCP connection).
I tried disabling double RR, I only see the VIP record route now,
however I still see the top Via with the non-VIP interface although
the INVITE is forwarded to the proxy using the VIP interface.
*From:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] *On
Behalf Of *Alex Balashov
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:31 PM
*To:* Mickael Marrache; sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
*Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Double record routes
That is normal behaviour if double RR is enabled in the RR module; two
Record-Routes will be added if Kamailio is multihomed and the invite
exits a different interface to the one it entered.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
*From: *Mickael Marrache
*Sent: *Tuesday, May 5, 2015 08:27
*To: *sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
*Reply To: *Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
*Subject: *[SR-Users] Double record routes
Hi,
We are adding TCP support to our load balancer and for some reason it
adds two record route headers.
The instance have two IP addresses on which it binds: one if the VIP
address and the second is the non-VIP address.
I explicitly set the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter with the VIP address so
that it is used as source address for outbound TCP connection.
So, we get the following INVITE going from the load balancer to a proxy:
T 2015/05/05 12:08:49.715822 VIP:54667 -> PROXY:5060 [AP]
INVITE sip:123@mycompany.com SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:NONVIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Record-Route: <sip:VIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
NONVIP;branch=z9hG4bK6f4.688efa90a17e02181ef7a11fecf8bb72.0;i=3.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
1.1.1.1:4598;received=2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKmqFaCxNo6m3f5LW4;rport=40020.
You can see the INVITE is sent from the VIP address (as specified
using the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter). However, the added Via
corresponds to the non-VIP address. Also, you can see the two record
route headers added for both addresses.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Mickael
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
10:32 p.m.
Hi,
After making some tests, I found that if I configure the VIP interface
before the non-VIP one, all works fine.
listen=tcp:VIP:5060
listen=tcp:nonVIP:5060
Double RR is still enabled but only one RR header is added (with the VIP
interface). Also, only one Via header is added (with the VIP interface). The
incoming INVITE is forwarded using a random source port, not 5060. I assume
it is the source port used to establish the TCP connection with the proxy
(next hop from the load balancer). However, this port doesn't appear in the
inserted RR and Via headers - don't know why.
Mickael
From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:13 PM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Double record routes
Hello,
do you have mhomed enabled? Are there routes from both IP addresses to the
destination?
IIRC, not that long ago I pointed to some article about linux not ensuring
what would be the local ip used for tcp connections when many interfaces are
having routes to destination. I couldn't find it quickly now, though.
What you can try is to force advertised address with:
listen=tcp:1.2.3.4:5060 advertise 1.2.3.4:5060
Cheers,
Daniel
On 05/05/15 15:02, Mickael Marrache wrote:
Here, there are 2 interfaces but only the VIP should be used. Also, the
INVITE exits the same interface it entered (i.e. the VIP) but exits with a
different source port (because of the TCP connection).
I tried disabling double RR, I only see the VIP record route now, however I
still see the top Via with the non-VIP interface although the INVITE is
forwarded to the proxy using the VIP interface.
From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of
Alex Balashov
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Mickael Marrache; sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Double record routes
That is normal behaviour if double RR is enabled in the RR module; two
Record-Routes will be added if Kamailio is multihomed and the invite exits a
different interface to the one it entered.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
From: Mickael Marrache
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 08:27
To: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Reply To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: [SR-Users] Double record routes
Hi,
We are adding TCP support to our load balancer and for some reason it adds
two record route headers.
The instance have two IP addresses on which it binds: one if the VIP address
and the second is the non-VIP address.
I explicitly set the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter with the VIP address so that
it is used as source address for outbound TCP connection.
So, we get the following INVITE going from the load balancer to a proxy:
T 2015/05/05 12:08:49.715822 VIP:54667 -> PROXY:5060 [AP]
INVITE sip:123@mycompany.com SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:NONVIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Record-Route: <sip:VIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
NONVIP;branch=z9hG4bK6f4.688efa90a17e02181ef7a11fecf8bb72.0;i=3.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
1.1.1.1:4598;received=2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKmqFaCxNo6m3f5LW4;rport=40020.
You can see the INVITE is sent from the VIP address (as specified using the
tcp_source_ipv4 parameter). However, the added Via corresponds to the
non-VIP address. Also, you can see the two record route headers added for
both addresses.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Mickael
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
6 May
6 May
10:36 a.m.
Hello,
On 05/05/15 21:32, Mickael Marrache wrote:
Hi,
After making some tests, I found that if I configure the VIP interface
before the non-VIP one, all works fine.
listen=tcp:VIP:5060
listen=tcp:nonVIP:5060
Double RR is still enabled but only one RR header is added (with the
VIP interface). Also, only one Via header is added (with the VIP
interface). The incoming INVITE is forwarded using a random source
port, not 5060. I assume it is the source port used to establish the
TCP connection with the proxy (next hop from the load balancer).
However, this port doesn't appear in the inserted RR and Via headers –
don't know why.
the source port you see in the network traffic is randomly allocated by
OS/kernel. The addresses in the headers should be those where kamailio
can receive traffic. If the port is 5060, it can be omitted, being the
default value for sip.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
3491
days inactive
3492
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Balashov -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Mickael Marrache