New subject: Kamailio does not add port number to addresses in Via, Record-Route headers

12 Dec 2017

Hello again,

Indeed this issue does not manifest at all. I'm awfully sorry for the false
alarm, and on release day no less!

The problem was there was a lingering DNAT rule in iptables, which would
translate port 5066 to port 5060. The deployment script injected this as it
was carried over from our legacy platform.

Of course, I kept banging my head against the wall here because sngrep
wouldn't show the DNAT's effect as it captures traffic from the NIC
directly: it would show a REGISTER arriving on 5066, but the dport was
masqueraded before being handed over to kamailio. Similarly for the
outgoing INVITE.

NAT is wrong in so many ways... :-)

BR,
George

On 11 December 2017 at 18:17, Daniel-Constantin Mierla &lt;miconda(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:

...
  Hello,

 I did a quick test and all looks fine, ports are set in via and
 record-route, in my config I have:

     record_route();

     $fs="udp:127.0.0.1:5080";
     $du = "sip:127.0.0.1:9";
     t_relay();
     exit;

 Then sending an OPTIONS resulted in the trace shown below.

 Cheers,
 Daniel

 U 2017/12/11 17:14:47.108430 127.0.0.1:56729 -> 127.0.0.1:5060
 OPTIONS sip:test@127.0.0.1 SIP/2.0.
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.178.84:62516;branch=z9hG4bK.3aaddf68;rport;alias.
 From: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516;tag=16d1c24.
 To: sip:test@127.0.0.1.
 Call-ID: 23927844(a)192.168.178.84.
 CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
 Contact: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516.
 Content-Length: 0.
 Max-Forwards: 70.
 User-Agent: sipsak 0.9.7pre.
 Accept: text/plain.
 .

 U 2017/12/11 17:14:51.010251 127.0.0.1:5080 -> 127.0.0.1:9
 OPTIONS sip:test@127.0.0.1 SIP/2.0.
 Record-Route: <sip:127.0.0.1:5080;r2=on;lr>.
 Record-Route: <sip:127.0.0.1;r2=on;lr>.
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:5080;branch=z9hG4bK61bd.
 b2882fea15c488761489f8ef588efbe1.0.
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.178.84:62516;received=127.0.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK.
 3aaddf68;rport=56729;alias.
 From: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516;tag=16d1c24.
 To: sip:test@127.0.0.1.
 Call-ID: 23927844(a)192.168.178.84.
 CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
 Contact: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516.
 Content-Length: 0.
 Max-Forwards: 69.
 User-Agent: sipsak 0.9.7pre.
 Accept: text/plain.
 .

 On 11.12.17 16:37, George Diamantopoulos wrote:

 Hello all,

 I have the following issue in my configuration, tested with 5.2.0-rc1 so
 far:

 At some point, I set the $fs pseudovariable to force a request to be
 relayed through a specific socket. Although this is honoured by kamailio
 (i.e. the request does indeed leave the kamailio host from the respective
 socket), the port number is not added to the Via and RR headers. As a
 result, all replies to the request, as well as all subsequent requests from
 the other SIP UA are relayed to the default port, 5060. Here's an example:

 SIP UAC to kamailio:
 INVITE 192.168.1.1:5060 ---> 192.168.1.254:5060
 Kamailio to UAS ($fs is set):
 INVITE 2.2.2.2:5066 ---> 3.3.3.3:5060
 Topmost Via in request relayed by kamailio is:
 SIP/2.0/UDP 2.2.2.2;branch=aaaaaaaaaaaaaa    <- port 5066 is not added
 Topmost RR in request relayed by kamailio is:
 <sip:2.2.2.2;r2=on;lr;did=bbbbbbb;nat=yes>    <- port 5066 is not added
 RESULT: Reply from UAS is sent to 2.2.2.2:5060

 Is this behaviour valid? Am I missing anything? Kamailio is configured to
 listen on both sockets on IP 2.2.2.2, namely: a) udp:2.2.2.2:5060 and b)
 2.2.2.2:5066. Thanks.

 BR,
 George

 _______________________________________________
 Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing
Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

 --
 Daniel-Constantin Mierlawww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
 Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
 Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio does not add port number to addresses in Via, Record-Route headers