forcing socket doesn't work for ACK

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Kamailio bypassing RTP media

run some extra things before...

David Villasmil

1 Apr 2019 1 Apr '19

5:37 p.m.

Hello guys, I have public and private IPs, and i need to force the sending socket replying to internal out externals endpoint, so i'm using this: function to check the destination (i tried using $sndto(ip) but it always returns NULL): route[CHECK_DEST_NET] { if ( $du=~"sip:172\..*" ) { setflag(FLAG_TO_PRIVATE); xlog("L_ERR", "[CHECK_SOURCE] Packet going to PRIVATE -> [$du]\n" ); } else { setflag(FLAG_TO_PUBLIC); xlog("L_ERR", "[CHECK_SOURCE] Packet going to PUBLIC -> [$du]\n" ); } return; } on my relay: route(CHECK_DEST_NET); if (isflagset(FLAG_TO_PRIVATE)) { xlog("L_ERR", "[RELAY] forcing socket to PRIVATE NET\n" ); force_send_socket(LISTEN_INSIDE_IF:LISTEN_INSIDE_PORT); } else { xlog("L_ERR", "[RELAY] forcing socket to PUBLIC NET\n" ); force_send_socket(LISTEN_OUTSIDE_IF:LISTEN_OUTSIDE_PORT); } This works nicely, except for ACKs and potentially other packets sent statelessly? Anyone knows how to fix this? Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 3.5 KB)

Show replies by date

David Villasmil

1 Apr 1 Apr

7:58 p.m.

anyone? :) David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:37 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sergiu Pojoga

8 p.m.

mhomed=1 Kam will auto select the socket On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:59 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

anyone? :) David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:37 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Antony Stone

8:07 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 17:37:45, David Villasmil wrote:

...

Hello guys, I have public and private IPs, and i need to force the sending socket replying to internal out externals endpoint

...

This works nicely, except for ACKs and potentially other packets sent statelessly? Anyone knows how to fix this?

Have you tried something like: ip rule add from int.ernal.ip.addr lookup mytable ip route add default dev external_interface_device table mytable echo "234 mytable" >>/etc/iproute2/rt_tables Antony. -- 3 logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks "Do you all want a drink?" The first logician says "I don't know." The second logician says "I don't know." The third logician says "Yes!" Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me.

David Villasmil

8:10 p.m.

Hello guys, this is my scenario, as you see, the public-facing ip is using port 5060 while the internal 5066. All works ok (with force_socket), but when forwarding the ACK, kamailio uses the wrong ip (5060), when it should be using 5066. U PUBLIC:58031 -> 172.31.69.53:5060 INVITE sip:*TESTCALL@myserver.com;transport=UDP SIP/2.0. U 172.31.69.53:5060 -> PUBLIC:58031 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us. U 172.31.69.53:5066 -> 172.31.65.238:5080 INVITE sip:*TESTCALL@myserver.com;transport=UDP SIP/2.0. U 172.31.65.238:5080 -> 172.31.69.53:5066 SIP/2.0 100 Trying. U 172.31.65.238:5080 -> 172.31.69.53:5066 SIP/2.0 200 OK. U 172.31.69.53:5060 -> PUBLIC:58031 SIP/2.0 200 OK. U PUBLIC:58031 -> 172.31.69.53:5060 ACK sip:*TESTCALL@172.31.65.238:5080;transport=udp SIP/2.0. ************BELOW************* U 172.31.69.53:5060 -> 172.31.65.238:5080 ACK sip:*TESTCALL@172.31.65.238:5080;transport=udp SIP/2.0. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:08 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 17:37:45, David Villasmil wrote:

Hello guys, I have public and private IPs, and i need to force the sending socket replying to internal out externals endpoint

This works nicely, except for ACKs and potentially other packets sent statelessly? Anyone knows how to fix this?

Sergiu Pojoga

8:18 p.m.

Have you tried proposed suggestions? On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 2:12 PM David Villasmil, < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 17:37:45, David Villasmil wrote:

Hello guys, I have public and private IPs, and i need to force the sending socket replying to internal out externals endpoint

This works nicely, except for ACKs and potentially other packets sent statelessly? Anyone knows how to fix this?

_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

David Villasmil

8:23 p.m.

Thanks Sergiu, yep, mhomed=1 is there But it's still failing to select the right socket Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:19 PM Sergiu Pojoga <pojogas(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Have you tried proposed suggestions? On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 2:12 PM David Villasmil, < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 17:37:45, David Villasmil wrote:

Hello guys, I have public and private IPs, and i need to force the sending socket replying to internal out externals endpoint

This works nicely, except for ACKs and potentially other packets sent statelessly? Anyone knows how to fix this?

_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Sergiu Pojoga

8:27 p.m.

I suppose you've also defined your `listen=` list? On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:25 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Have you tried proposed suggestions? On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 2:12 PM David Villasmil, < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 17:37:45, David Villasmil wrote: > Hello guys, > I have public and private IPs, and i need to force the sending socket > replying to internal out externals endpoint > This works nicely, except for ACKs and potentially other packets sent > statelessly? > > Anyone knows how to fix this? Have you tried something like: ip rule add from int.ernal.ip.addr lookup mytable ip route add default dev external_interface_device table mytable echo "234 mytable" >>/etc/iproute2/rt_tables Antony. -- 3 logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks "Do you all want a drink?" The first logician says "I don't know." The second logician says "I don't know." The third logician says "Yes!" Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ 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

David Villasmil

8:29 p.m.

Sergiu, I don't think mhomed will help in this case, since both sockets are able to reach the endpoint. They are both on the same subnet. listen=udp:172.31.69.53:5060 advertuse PUBLIC:5060 listen=udp:172.31.69.53:5066 Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:23 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Have you tried proposed suggestions? On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 2:12 PM David Villasmil, < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Antony Stone

8:34 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 20:29:22, David Villasmil wrote:

...

Sergiu, I don't think mhomed will help in this case, since both sockets are able to reach the endpoint. They are both on the same subnet.

David Villasmil

8:50 p.m.

This is an AWS instance. And i want to segregate public from private. AWS does not provide actual public IPs on the instances themselves, so on the same interface: 5060 will serve public requests. 5066 will server private requests. The firewall will only allow public traffic to port 5060 while blocking 5066. Only internal ips will be allowed to 5066. David Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:35 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 20:29:22, David Villasmil wrote:

Sergiu, I don't think mhomed will help in this case, since both sockets are able

reach the endpoint. They are both on the same subnet.

Why? What is the purpose of this rather odd networking setup? Antony -- "It would appear we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements; they tend to sound pretty silly in five years." - John von Neumann (1949) Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

David Villasmil

8:56 p.m.

I think i see what's happening, ACK is going through the REALY route, but at that point it does NOT have a$du (and $sndto(ip) is null) note: all those ERROR is juts me logging. ERROR: <script>: [WITHINDLG] ACK Packet coming from PUBLIC:58031 and going to <null> exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=710 a=5 n=route exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NATMANAGE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=950 a=2 n=return exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=715 a=5 n=route exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=624 a=16 n=if exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=621 a=25 n=is_method exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=627 a=16 n=if exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=624 a=25 n=is_method exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=631 a=16 n=if exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=627 a=25 n=is_method exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=631 a=5 n=route exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=600 a=26 n=xlog ERROR: <script>: [CHECK_SOURCE] Packet received on: 172.31.69.53:5060 exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=601 a=26 n=xlog exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=602 a=26 n=xlog exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=610 a=16 n=if *DEBUG: pv [pv_core.c:1122]: pv_get_dsturi(): no destination URI* exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=608 a=39 n=setflag exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=609 a=26 n=xlog DEBUG: pv [pv_core.c:1122]: pv_get_dsturi(): no destination URI *ERROR: <script>: [CHECK_SOURCE] Packet going to PUBLIC -> [<null>]* whereas an INVITE _does_ have a $du (remember all work, except ACK) ERROR: <script>: [WITHINDLG] ACK Packet coming from PUBLIC:58031 and going to <null> exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=710 a=5 n=route exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NATMANAGE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=950 a=2 n=return exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=715 a=5 n=route exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=624 a=16 n=if exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=621 a=25 n=is_method exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=627 a=16 n=if exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=624 a=25 n=is_method exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=631 a=16 n=if exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RELAY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=627 a=25 n=is_method exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DEFAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=631 a=5 n=route exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=600 a=26 n=xlog ERROR: <script>: [CHECK_SOURCE] Packet received on: 172.31.69.53:5060 exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=601 a=26 n=xlog exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=602 a=26 n=xlog exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=610 a=16 n=if DEBUG: pv [pv_core.c:1122]: pv_get_dsturi(): no destination URI exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=608 a=39 n=setflag exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[CHECK_DEST_NET] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=609 a=26 n=xlog DEBUG: pv [pv_core.c:1122]: pv_get_dsturi(): no destination URI ERROR: <script>: [CHECK_SOURCE] Packet going to PUBLIC -> [<null>] Why would an ACK not have a $du? Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:50 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 20:29:22, David Villasmil wrote:

Sergiu, I don't think mhomed will help in this case, since both sockets are

able to

reach the endpoint. They are both on the same subnet.

Antony Stone

9:03 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 20:50:46, David Villasmil wrote:

...

Can't you use a single (private) IP and a single port number, but provide different services based on the peer's IP address (private or public)? Antony.

...

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:35 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > What is the purpose of this rather odd networking setup?

-- The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage. Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me.

David Villasmil

9:07 p.m.

Hello Antony, I suppose i could, but i don't much like the thought. I would like to have totally separate IP/port combination. And, in any case, it wouldn't really answer the question, right? Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:03 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 20:50:46, David Villasmil wrote:

Can't you use a single (private) IP and a single port number, but provide different services based on the peer's IP address (private or public)? Antony.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:35 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > What is the purpose of this rather odd networking setup?

-- The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage. Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Antony Stone

9:16 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:07:59, David Villasmil wrote:

...

Hello Antony, I suppose i could, but i don't much like the thought. I would like to have totally separate IP/port combination.

Okay.

...

And, in any case, it wouldn't really answer the question, right?

No, but it might not be the right question to ask :) Do you prefer to ask "how can I make this strange networking setup operate?" or "how can I arrange my networking so that this service works?" Antony.

...

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:03 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > Can't you use a single (private) IP and a single port number, but provide > different services based on the peer's IP address (private or public)?

-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy chapters involving quantum mechanics. - mnemonic for 3.14159265358979 Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me.

David Villasmil

9:19 p.m.

point taken. But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same issue, wouldn't i? Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:07:59, David Villasmil wrote:

Hello Antony, I suppose i could, but i don't much like the thought. I would like to

have

totally separate IP/port combination.

Okay.

And, in any case, it wouldn't really answer the question, right?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:03 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > Can't you use a single (private) IP and a single port number, but

provide

> different services based on the peer's IP address (private or public)?

-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy chapters involving quantum mechanics. - mnemonic for 3.14159265358979 Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Antony Stone

9:26 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:19:13, David Villasmil wrote:

...

point taken. But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same issue, wouldn't i?

No, because (unless AWS works in some totally strange way that I can't imagine being the case) the two interfaces would have different IPs and different routes, and only one would be your default route to the Internet (ie: public IP addresses). Then your "internal" machines would connect to the IP on an interface which only routes back to them and can't see the Internet, and public connections would come in to a different IP on another interface which can route back to them. Someone with personal familiarity with AWS systems may be able to inject a more definite answer here. Antony.

...

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > Do you prefer to ask "how can I make this strange networking setup > operate?" > or "how can I arrange my networking so that this service works?"

-- There's a good theatrical performance about puns on in the West End. It's a play on words. Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me.

Fred Posner

9:32 p.m.

The way I've always done this for things like AWS or natted is to use one ip/port and advertise the external address and then if I have another ip use that for internal... if I only have one IP, use a different port. Example 1: listen=udp:192.168.25.31:5060 advertise 1.2.3.4:5060 #-- Public Socket listen=udp:192.168.25.33:5060 #-- Private Socket Example 2: listen=udp:192.168.25.31:5060 advertise 1.2.3.4:5060 #-- Public Socket listen=udp:192.168.25.31:5080 #-- Private Socket Fred Posner fred(a)qxork.com https://qxork.com Direct/SMS: +1 (224) 334-3733 Direct/SMS: +1 (336) 439-3733 Need Fred? Call Fred. 336-HEY-FRED Matrix: @fred:matrix.lod.com On 4/1/19 3:26 PM, Antony Stone wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:19:13, David Villasmil wrote:

point taken. But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same issue, wouldn't i?

David Villasmil

9:38 p.m.

actually that's a good point, the default gateway. But, ven if i have 2 different IPs, those 2 would still have direct contact with the private IPs. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:27 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:19:13, David Villasmil wrote:

point taken. But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same issue, wouldn't i?

-- There's a good theatrical performance about puns on in the West End. It's a play on words. Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Antony Stone

9:46 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:38:21, David Villasmil wrote:

...

actually that's a good point, the default gateway. But, ven if i have 2 different IPs, those 2 would still have direct contact with the private IPs.

No, because (again, unless AWS works in some totally strange way that I can't imagine being the case) those two private IPs would be in different subnets, so only one is locally addressable by the other privately addressed machines. Antony. -- The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed in 1824. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was not formed until 1884. That says something about the British. Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me.

David Villasmil

9:51 p.m.

They're not, they're in the same subnet. At least on my tests. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:47 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:38:21, David Villasmil wrote:

actually that's a good point, the default gateway. But, ven if i have 2 different IPs, those 2 would still have direct

contact

with the private IPs.

Antony Stone

10 p.m.

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:51:13, David Villasmil wrote:

...

They're not, they're in the same subnet. At least on my tests.

In that case I can only wonder why AWS works like this. I think I've run out of networking-based suggestions to fulfilling your requirements. Antony.

...

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:47 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > No, because (again, unless AWS works in some totally strange way that I > can't imagine being the case) those two private IPs would be in different > subnets, so only one is locally addressable by the other privately > addressed machines.

-- "Can you keep a secret?" "Well, I shouldn't really tell you this, but... no." Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me.

David Villasmil

10:51 p.m.

New subject: forcing socket doesn't work for ACK [solved]

Well, As suggested, i decided to go with a single ip address. Thanks everyone! Thanks to @Federico Cabiddu <federico.cabiddu(a)gmail.com> i understood why the ACK has no $du. This is because all record-routes have been consumed because this is the final hop. So no record-route, no $du. I have to use the ruri. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:01 PM Antony Stone < Antony.Stone(a)kamailio.open.source.it> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:51:13, David Villasmil wrote:

They're not, they're in the same subnet. At least on my tests.

In that case I can only wonder why AWS works like this. I think I've run out of networking-based suggestions to fulfilling your requirements. Antony.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:47 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > No, because (again, unless AWS works in some totally strange way that I > can't imagine being the case) those two private IPs would be in

different

> subnets, so only one is locally addressable by the other privately > addressed machines.

-- "Can you keep a secret?" "Well, I shouldn't really tell you this, but... no." Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

David Villasmil

10:52 p.m.

Well, As suggested, i decided to go with a single ip address. Thanks everyone! Thanks to @Federico Cabiddu <federico.cabiddu(a)gmail.com> i understood why the ACK has no $du. This is because all record-routes have been consumed because this is the final hop. So no record-route, no $du. I have to use the ruri. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:38 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:19:13, David Villasmil wrote:

point taken. But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same issue, wouldn't i?

Joel Serrano

2 Apr 2 Apr

4:41 p.m.

David, out of curiosity, are you finally using only one listen= line or two in your AWS setup? More specific: are you only listening on one port with the ‘advertise’ set or are you finally listenting on two ports? If your are using one port only you might find yourself using egress (billed) traffic between your instances, so make sure in the captures your are really seeing your internal IP in the RR headers when talking to internal servers instead of the egress (public) IP. Thanks, Joel On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 13:54 David Villasmil <david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Well, As suggested, i decided to go with a single ip address. Thanks everyone! Thanks to @Federico Cabiddu <federico.cabiddu(a)gmail.com> i understood why the ACK has no $du. This is because all record-routes have been consumed because this is the final hop. So no record-route, no $du. I have to use the ruri. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:38 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:19:13, David Villasmil wrote:

point taken. But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same issue, wouldn't i?

_______________________________________________

Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

David Villasmil

3 May 3 May

1:20 p.m.

Hey Joel! I’m using only one. I will double-check that! Thanks David On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 15:44, Joel Serrano <joel(a)textplus.com> wrote:

...

Well, As suggested, i decided to go with a single ip address. Thanks everyone! Thanks to @Federico Cabiddu <federico.cabiddu(a)gmail.com> i understood why the ACK has no $du. This is because all record-routes have been consumed because this is the final hop. So no record-route, no $du. I have to use the ruri. Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:38 PM David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday 01 April 2019 at 21:19:13, David Villasmil wrote: > point taken. > > But if i do have two separate interfaces, i would still have the same > issue, wouldn't i? No, because (unless AWS works in some totally strange way that I can't imagine being the case) the two interfaces would have different IPs and different routes, and only one would be your default route to the Internet (ie: public IP addresses). Then your "internal" machines would connect to the IP on an interface which only routes back to them and can't see the Internet, and public connections would come in to a different IP on another interface which can route back to them. Someone with personal familiarity with AWS systems may be able to inject a more definite answer here. Antony. > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Antony Stone wrote: > > > > Do you prefer to ask "how can I make this strange networking setup > > operate?" > > or "how can I arrange my networking so that this service works?" -- There's a good theatrical performance about puns on in the West End. It's a play on words. Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. _______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- Regards, David Villasmil email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com phone: +34669448337

Mauricio Tejeda

1 Apr 1 Apr

9:07 p.m.

Hello Check your reply_route. An example I use with public and private interfaces and mhomed=1 onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] { xdbg("incoming reply\n"); if(t_check_status("(180|183|200)")){ fix_nated_contact(); } El lun., 1 de abr. de 2019 12:38 p. m., David Villasmil < david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com> escribió:

...

2051

days inactive

2083

days old

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

Manage subscription

26 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Antony Stone
David Villasmil
Fred Posner
Joel Serrano
Mauricio Tejeda
Sergiu Pojoga