Yes, I have.
Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
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@xorcom.com> 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@xorcom.com> 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 miconda@gmail.com 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 miconda@gmail.com 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 > leonid.fainshtein@xorcom.com 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@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