Hi Alexander, indeed, it seams you have case. Even if the draft says that the alias tuple must include the VIA ip:port, currently the IP is considered as received IP. Why? not sure (is Andrei's work), but I can speculate on the overhead introduce in getting the address from via and convert it to IP (via may contain DNS name which should be resolved!). If we go ahead on this road, right, you need a way to set the NAT IP in the contact -> use fix_nated_contact() which does not support TCP :D. I do not like this approach because the alias is a mixture between the NAT IP and the inside port :/ If we go as the draft says, and use via ip:port we have to face the need of performing DNS lookup only to generate the alias ....this is even uglier and more dangerous. and also we will end having private IPs in RURIs and in aliases..which is a little bit tricky - a private IP is not unique ;). so, I would say the best way is the first one....and to allow fix_nated_contact() also for TCP/TLS......... regards, bogdan Alexander Ph. Lintenhofer wrote: > Hi All, > > I just wanted to ask you once again about the TCP-alias riddle. I > found out, that there is a problem with the combination of > fix_nated_contact(), force_tcp_alias() and NAT: > > Imagine following situation: > > Alice behind NAT: socket 172.16.0.6:2421 > Nat-Box translates this to 192.168.0.13:6007 > > The Outbound-Proxy of Alice is 192.168.0.1 > > Bob is registered with 192.168.1.1 > > 1.) > Her INVITE: > ==================================================================== > INVITE sip:bob@192.168.1.1:2331;transport=tcp;line=wxqurd1s SIP/2.0 > [...] > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 172.16.0.6:2421;received=192.168.0.13; > branch=z9hG4bK-wm9jcstcboys;rport=6007 > From: "Alice" <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=sufzmxi0us > To: "Bob" <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=c9550czwtn > [...] > Contact: <sip:alice@172.16.0.6:2421;transport=tcp;line=fyyuh6tl> > [...] > ==================================================================== > > 2.) > fix_nated_contact() doesn't work with TCP (look at nathelper.c). > force_tcp_alias() now creates following tuple as TCP-alias: > 192.168.0.13:6007 to 192.168.0.13:2421 > > Reason: > The TCP-alias is not built solely from the Via-header as suggested > in the draft. The portnumber is taken from the Via-header and the > IP-address is taken from the source of the incoming datagram. I > read it in the sourcecode and assured it by contacting Andrei! > > 3.) > So as a result of the notfixed Contact-header of Alice's INVITE > the BYE of Bob is addressed to 172.16.0.6:2421. But no TCP-alias > exists for this socket :-( > > 4.) > I made following test by rewriting the Contact-header.... > ==================================================================== > if (method=="INVITE") > { > replace("Contact: <sip:alice@172.16.0.6:2421;transport=tcp;", > "Contact: <sip:alice@192.168.0.13:2421;transport=tcp;"); > } > ==================================================================== > ...with success. Now TCP-alias works as you can see on my > Ethereal-trace below! > Compare the destination port of the packet to the destination port > of the RURI! > ==================================================================== > [...] > Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: 5060 (5060), Dst Port: > 6007 (6007), ... > Session Initiation Protocol > Request-Line: BYE > sip:alice@192.168.0.13:2421;transport=tcp;line=fyyuh6tl SIP/2.0 > Message Header > [...] > From: "Bob" <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=kcsveifugd > To: "Alice" <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=ricaq5cy15 > Contact: <sip:bob@192.168.1.1:2331;transport=tcp;line=wxqurd1s> > [...] > ==================================================================== > > Another solution: > Comment the lines in nathelper.c which force the return in case of > TCP or TLS. Now all works well! > > But why?????????????? > > regards, > Philipp > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users(a)openser.org > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >

.... and it is not really a big deal to implement it :-) regards, Philipp > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > >> Hi Alexander, >> >> sound like a solid reason. It means that the solution will be to >> allow fix_nated_contact() for TCP based protos. >> any other suggestions? > > > > > > > I think it should be fine to allow fix_nated_contact() also for > TCP/TLS (to have correct alias mapping) > > regards > klaus > >> >> regards, >> bogdan >> >> Alexander Philipp Lintenhofer wrote: >> >>> Hi Bogdan, >>> >>> This is the answer, Andrei gave me: >>> "....ser aliases only the ports, it never adds an alias for an >>> IP (security risk)....." >>> >>> I think, he means TCP-hijacking in the case of a >>> modificated/malformed via-header. >>> >>> regards, >>> Philipp >>> >>>> Hi Alexander, >>>> >>>> indeed, it seams you have case. Even if the draft says that the >>>> alias tuple must include the VIA ip:port, currently the IP is >>>> considered as received IP. Why? not sure (is Andrei's work), >>>> but I can speculate on the overhead introduce in getting the >>>> address from via and convert it to IP (via may contain DNS name >>>> which should be resolved!). >>>> >>>> If we go ahead on this road, right, you need a way to set the >>>> NAT IP in the contact -> use fix_nated_contact() which does not >>>> support TCP :D. I do not like this approach because the alias >>>> is a mixture between the NAT IP and the inside port :/ >>>> >>>> If we go as the draft says, and use via ip:port we have to face >>>> the need of performing DNS lookup only to generate the alias >>>> ....this is even uglier and more dangerous. and also we will >>>> end having private IPs in RURIs and in aliases..which is a >>>> little bit tricky - a private IP is not unique ;). >>>> >>>> so, I would say the best way is the first one....and to allow >>>> fix_nated_contact() also for TCP/TLS......... >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> bogdan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alexander Ph. Lintenhofer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I just wanted to ask you once again about the TCP-alias >>>>> riddle. I found out, that there is a problem with the >>>>> combination of fix_nated_contact(), force_tcp_alias() and NAT: >>>>> >>>>> Imagine following situation: >>>>> >>>>> Alice behind NAT: socket 172.16.0.6:2421 >>>>> Nat-Box translates this to 192.168.0.13:6007 >>>>> >>>>> The Outbound-Proxy of Alice is 192.168.0.1 >>>>> >>>>> Bob is registered with 192.168.1.1 >>>>> >>>>> 1.) >>>>> Her INVITE: >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> INVITE sip:bob@192.168.1.1:2331;transport=tcp;line=wxqurd1s >>>>> SIP/2.0 >>>>> [...] >>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 172.16.0.6:2421;received=192.168.0.13; >>>>> branch=z9hG4bK-wm9jcstcboys;rport=6007 >>>>> From: "Alice" <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=sufzmxi0us >>>>> To: "Bob" <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=c9550czwtn >>>>> [...] >>>>> Contact: <sip:alice@172.16.0.6:2421;transport=tcp;line=fyyuh6tl> >>>>> [...] >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.) >>>>> fix_nated_contact() doesn't work with TCP (look at nathelper.c). >>>>> force_tcp_alias() now creates following tuple as TCP-alias: >>>>> 192.168.0.13:6007 to 192.168.0.13:2421 >>>>> >>>>> Reason: >>>>> The TCP-alias is not built solely from the Via-header as >>>>> suggested in the draft. The portnumber is taken from the >>>>> Via-header and the IP-address is taken from the source of the >>>>> incoming datagram. I read it in the sourcecode and assured it >>>>> by contacting Andrei! >>>>> >>>>> 3.) >>>>> So as a result of the notfixed Contact-header of Alice's >>>>> INVITE the BYE of Bob is addressed to 172.16.0.6:2421. But no >>>>> TCP-alias exists for this socket :-( >>>>> >>>>> 4.) >>>>> I made following test by rewriting the Contact-header.... >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> if (method=="INVITE") >>>>> { >>>>> replace("Contact: <sip:alice@172.16.0.6:2421;transport=tcp;", >>>>> "Contact: >>>>> <sip:alice@192.168.0.13:2421;transport=tcp;"); >>>>> } >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> ...with success. Now TCP-alias works as you can see on my >>>>> Ethereal-trace below! >>>>> Compare the destination port of the packet to the destination >>>>> port of the RURI! >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: 5060 (5060), Dst >>>>> Port: 6007 (6007), ... >>>>> Session Initiation Protocol >>>>> Request-Line: BYE >>>>> sip:alice@192.168.0.13:2421;transport=tcp;line=fyyuh6tl SIP/2.0 >>>>> Message Header >>>>> [...] >>>>> From: "Bob" <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=kcsveifugd >>>>> To: "Alice" <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=ricaq5cy15 >>>>> Contact: <sip:bob@192.168.1.1:2331;transport=tcp;line=wxqurd1s> >>>>> [...] >>>>> ==================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another solution: >>>>> Comment the lines in nathelper.c which force the return in >>>>> case of TCP or TLS. Now all works well! >>>>> >>>>> But why?????????????? >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> Philipp >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>