Hello,
i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
We have set the parameter mhomed=1
When Alice calls Bob, we have
Alice Proxy Bob
src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------>
src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060
dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060
dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066
src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK ----------->
*src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060
The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly.
I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ?
/*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066?* /
Thank you for your time.
Thomas
Hi
Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello thomas.carvello@ives.fr:
Hello, i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration. This configuration is multi-homed, we have two network interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server. We have set the parameter mhomed=1 When Alice calls Bob, we have Alice Proxy Bob src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------>
src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066
src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK ----------->
src=5060 (blocked by NAT) ------ ACK-----x dst=5060The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established. For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before? I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ? How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066? Thank you for your time. Thomas
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Best Evgeniy
Thank you for you answer.
We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this case.
In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR module and the loose_route() function.
In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the route set of the ACK message
But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a trace:
"No next URI found"
and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our configuration instead.
At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose() should force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior.
Are we missing something?
Thank you for you time,
Thomas
Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
Hi
Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello <thomas.carvello@ives.fr>: Hello, i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration. This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server. We have set the parameter mhomed=1 When Alice calls Bob, we have Alice Proxy Bob src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------> src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060 dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066 src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK -----------> *src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060 The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established. For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before? I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ? /*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066?* / Thank you for your time. Thomas _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-usersBest Evgeniy
Hi Thomas,
We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a modparam: enable_double_rr. Would this be a solution for you?
Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan
On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" thomas.carvello@ives.fr wrote:
Thank you for you answer.
We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this case.
In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR module and the loose_route() function. In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the route set of the ACK message
But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a trace:
"No next URI found"
and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our configuration instead.
At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose() should force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior.
Are we missing something?
Thank you for you time, Thomas
Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
Hi
Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello thomas.carvello@ives.fr thomas.carvello@ives.fr:
Hello,
i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
This configuration is multi-homed, we have* two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
We have set the parameter mhomed=1
When Alice calls Bob, we have
Alice Proxy Bob
src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------>
src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066
src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK ----------->
*src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ?
*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066? *
Thank you for your time.
Thomas
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Best Evgeniy
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hi Timmo,
We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 5066 on the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, this seems logical.
Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an exemple of Route: header?
Emmanuel BUU IVèS
Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a modparam: enable_double_rr. Would this be a solution for you?
Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan
On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" <thomas.carvello@ives.fr mailto:thomas.carvello@ives.fr> wrote:
Thank you for you answer. We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this case. In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR module and the loose_route() function. In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the route set of the ACK message But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a trace: "No next URI found" and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our configuration instead. At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose() should force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior. Are we missing something? Thank you for you time, Thomas Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :Hi Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello <thomas.carvello@ives.fr> <mailto:thomas.carvello@ives.fr>: Hello, i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration. This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server. We have set the parameter mhomed=1 When Alice calls Bob, we have Alice Proxy Bob src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------> src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060 dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066 src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK -----------> *src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060 The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established. For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before? I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ? /*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066?* / Thank you for your time. Thomas _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> Best Evgeniy_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hi Emmanuel,
I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd say that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if both route headers are equal.
As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix loose route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).
Regards, Timmo
On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU" emmanuel.buu@ives.fr wrote:
Hi Timmo,
We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 5066 on the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, this seems logical. Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an exemple of Route: header?
Emmanuel BUU IVèS
Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a modparam: enable_double_rr. Would this be a solution for you?
Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan
On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" thomas.carvello@ives.fr wrote:
Thank you for you answer.
We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this case.
In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR module and the loose_route() function. In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the route set of the ACK message
But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a trace:
"No next URI found"
and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our configuration instead.
At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose() should force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior.
Are we missing something?
Thank you for you time, Thomas
Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
Hi
Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello thomas.carvello@ives.fr thomas.carvello@ives.fr:
Hello,
i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
This configuration is multi-homed, we have* two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
We have set the parameter mhomed=1
When Alice calls Bob, we have
Alice Proxy Bob
src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------>
src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066
src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK ----------->
*src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ?
*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066? *
Thank you for your time.
Thomas
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Best Evgeniy
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Le 2018-02-02 à 23:12, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Emmanuel,
I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd say that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if both route headers are equal.
I don't think this is the correct behavior to add to identical SIP URI in the route set.
As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix loose route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).
We will post a ticket and submit a patch to fix loose_route() instead. Don't want to add some strange cases to out script which is already quite complex.
Regards, Timmo
Emmanuel
On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU" <emmanuel.buu@ives.fr mailto:emmanuel.buu@ives.fr> wrote:
Hi Timmo, We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 5066 on the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, this seems logical. Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an exemple of Route: header? Emmanuel BUU IVèS Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :Hi Thomas, We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a modparam: enable_double_rr. Would this be a solution for you? Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" <thomas.carvello@ives.fr <mailto:thomas.carvello@ives.fr>> wrote: Thank you for you answer. We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this case. In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR module and the loose_route() function. In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the route set of the ACK message But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a trace: "No next URI found" and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our configuration instead. At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose() should force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior. Are we missing something? Thank you for you time, Thomas Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :Hi Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello <thomas.carvello@ives.fr> <mailto:thomas.carvello@ives.fr>: Hello, i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration. This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server. We have set the parameter mhomed=1 When Alice calls Bob, we have Alice Proxy Bob src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------> src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060 dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066 src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK -----------> *src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060 The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established. For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before? I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ? /*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066?* / Thank you for your time. Thomas _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> Best Evgeniy_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Upon inspection I think you should set enable_double_rr to value '2'. It will always add two record route headers. It is a small line in documentation.
I don't see how loose_route can be fixed if you only have 1 route header. It won't be compatible with multi homed kamailio.
Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan
On 3 Feb 2018 00:15, "Emmanuel BUU" emmanuel.buu@ives.fr wrote:
Le 2018-02-02 à 23:12, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Emmanuel,
I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd say that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if both route headers are equal.
I don't think this is the correct behavior to add to identical SIP URI in the route set.
As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix loose route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).
We will post a ticket and submit a patch to fix loose_route() instead. Don't want to add some strange cases to out script which is already quite complex.
Regards, Timmo
Emmanuel
On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU" emmanuel.buu@ives.fr wrote:
Hi Timmo,
We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 5066 on the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, this seems logical. Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an exemple of Route: header?
Emmanuel BUU IVèS
Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a modparam: enable_double_rr. Would this be a solution for you?
Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan
On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" thomas.carvello@ives.fr wrote:
Thank you for you answer.
We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this case.
In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR module and the loose_route() function. In the after_loose() function in loose.c, the function set_force_socket() is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the route set of the ACK message
But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a trace:
"No next URI found"
and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our configuration instead.
At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that it is a software bug and that after_loose() should force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior.
Are we missing something?
Thank you for you time, Thomas
Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
Hi
Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port? Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello thomas.carvello@ives.fr thomas.carvello@ives.fr:
Hello,
i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
This configuration is multi-homed, we have* two network* interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066. Both users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
We have set the parameter mhomed=1
When Alice calls Bob, we have
Alice Proxy Bob
src=5063 dst=5066 INVITE ------------------>
src=5066 ------ INVITE ---------------> dst=5060 dst=5066 <------- 200 OK -------------- src=5060dst=5063 <------- 200 OK --------- src=5066
src=5063 dst=5066 -------- ACK ----------->
*src=5060 (blocked by NAT)* ------ ACK-----x dst=5060The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of this selection ?
*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066? *
Thank you for your time.
Thomas
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Best Evgeniy
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Le 2018-02-03 à 08:10, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Upon inspection I think you should set enable_double_rr to value '2'. It will always add two record route headers. It is a small line in documentation.
Interesting.
I don't see how loose_route can be fixed if you only have 1 route header. It won't be compatible with multi homed kamailio.
Yes, we have posted an issue and proposed a patch that should be compatible with mhomed=1.
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1428
Kind regards, Timmo Verlaan
Emmanuel
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-
Emmanuel BUU -
Thomas Carvello -
Timmo Verlaan -
Евгений Голей