13 Aug
2014
13 Aug
'14
5:28 p.m.
Hi,
My proxy is bound to a.b.c.d:5060 and secondarily to e.f.g.h:5060.
Most traffic comes into a.b.c.d:5060 and is relayed out that interface.
Some initial INVITEs are routed out of e.f.g.h:5060, forced via $fs. The
problem is that the Record-Route header still reflects a.b.c.d:5060 and
that sequential messages from both ends end up entering and exiting
a.b.c.d:5060. Many endpoints don't like that; for instance, e2e ACKs
from the caller that come from a.b.c.d:5060 while the initial INVITE
came from e.f.g.h:5060 can be a problem in that they are not matched by
some UASs.
What is the best way to approach this? Is this something covered by
Kamailio's 'mhomed' core param?
Thanks,
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Please be kind to the English language:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232906
13 Aug
13 Aug
6:03 p.m.
Hello,
On 13/08/14 16:28, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hi,
My proxy is bound to a.b.c.d:5060 and secondarily to e.f.g.h:5060.
Most traffic comes into a.b.c.d:5060 and is relayed out that
interface. Some initial INVITEs are routed out of e.f.g.h:5060, forced
via $fs. The problem is that the Record-Route header still reflects
a.b.c.d:5060 and that sequential messages from both ends end up
entering and exiting a.b.c.d:5060. Many endpoints don't like that; for
instance, e2e ACKs from the caller that come from a.b.c.d:5060 while
the initial INVITE came from e.f.g.h:5060 can be a problem in that
they are not matched by some UASs.
What is the best way to approach this? Is this something covered by
Kamailio's 'mhomed' core param?
if you force a different outbound
socket than inbound, then the
record_route() should add two headers -- doesn't happen like that? If
yes, can you provide a trace?
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
6:21 p.m.
On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual
network interface?
Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Please be kind to the English language:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232906
6:28 p.m.
On 13/08/14 17:21, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual
network interface?
Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
14 Aug
14 Aug
1:14 p.m.
On 08/13/2014 11:28 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 13/08/14 17:21, Alex Balashov wrote:
No, it is not.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Please be kind to the English language:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232906
On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers? Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual
network interface?
Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
1:41 p.m.
On 14/08/14 12:14, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 08/13/2014 11:28 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
On 13/08/14 17:21, Alex Balashov wrote:
No, it is not. On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers? Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual
network interface?
Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
1:47 p.m.
On 08/14/2014 06:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 14/08/14 12:14, Alex Balashov wrote:
Sure thing. I sent it to you privately to avoid masking IP addresses.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Please be kind to the English language:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232906
On 08/13/2014 11:28 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?
On 13/08/14 17:21, Alex Balashov wrote:
No, it is not. On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
> Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?
Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?
2:13 p.m.
On 14/08/14 12:47, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 08/14/2014 06:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Just double checking -- you haven't disable the double rr via module,
isn't?
Do you have explicit listen= or it is left to listen on all interfaces?
Can you give the output of:
kamcmd corex.list_sockets ?
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
On 14/08/14 12:14, Alex Balashov wrote:
Sure thing. I sent it to you privately to avoid masking IP addresses.
On 08/13/2014 11:28 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?
On 13/08/14 17:21, Alex Balashov wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
>> Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?
>
> Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
>
Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?
No, it is not.
2:18 p.m.
You know what? I do have double RR disabled. I thought about that, and was so sure I
wouldn't have turned it off that I didn't even check. But it's disabled. I
feel quite stupid. Let me retest and let you know what happens.
On 14 August 2014 07:13:36 GMT-04:00, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 14/08/14 12:47, Alex Balashov wrote:
Sure thing. I sent it to you privately to avoid masking IP addresses.
Just double checking -- you haven't disable the double rr via module,
isn't?
Do you have explicit listen= or it is left to listen on all interfaces?
Can you give the output of:
kamcmd corex.list_sockets ?
Daniel
--
Sent from my mobile, and thus lacking in the refinement one might expect from a fully
fledged keyboard.
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur, GA 30030
United States
Tel: +1-678-954-0671
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com
On 08/14/2014 06:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
>
> On 14/08/14 12:14, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 11:28 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/08/14 17:21, Alex Balashov wrote:
>>>> On 08/13/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network
interface?
>>
>> Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?
>>
> Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?
No, it is not.
Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?
3756
days inactive
3757
days old
8 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alex Balashov -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla