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

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 >> >