21 Mar
2018
21 Mar
'18
4:05 p.m.
When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier, I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4
192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address
and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails.
What elegant workaround can be done to catch such specific cases?
Thanks.
21 Mar
21 Mar
5:08 p.m.
You could do something like below to check specifically for that case and
override the uac test.
if (sdp_get_line_startswith("$avp(cline)", "c="))
$var(sdp_contact_host) = $(avp(cline){re.subst,/c=IN IP4 (.+)/\1/});
if (is_in_subnet("$avp(sdp_contact_host)", "192.0.0.0/29"))
.........
6:38 p.m.
Convoluted solution for an abnormal problem, but it works, thanks!
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:08 PM, John Petrini <jpetrini(a)coredial.com>
wrote:
You could do something like below to check
specifically for that case and
override the uac test.
if (sdp_get_line_startswith("$avp(cline)", "c="))
$var(sdp_contact_host) = $(avp(cline){re.subst,/c=IN IP4 (.+)/\1/});
if (is_in_subnet("$avp(sdp_contact_host)", "192.0.0.0/29"))
.........
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
22 Mar
22 Mar
6:13 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:05:15AM -0400, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier,
I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4
192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address
and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails.
Looking at the table at the bottom of
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-speci…
Should't the check be updated to include 192.0.0.0/29?
It is explicitly defined for NAT and has the exact same properties as
RFC1918 and RFC6598 addresses.
9:23 p.m.
If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for 192.0.0.0/29
I think that's a great idea.
23 Mar
23 Mar
10:43 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated
to check for 192.0.0.0/29
I think that's a great idea.
Don't know if I got every use in the source tree of private nets, but
following diff should do the trick. This net can be used for ip4<->ipv6<->ipv4
NAT translations. So 6TO4-RELAY in ipops fits better than PRIVATE. But is simply
indicates NAT transversal for the nathelper module.
I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
appropriate git magic.
diff --git a/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c b/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c
index a37c4aacc..529645e99 100644
--- a/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c
+++ b/src/modules/ipops/detailed_ip_type.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ static ip4_node IPv4ranges[IPv4RANGES_SIZE] = {
{ 0xc0586300, "6TO4-RELAY", 0xffffff00 }, // 192.88.99.0/24
{ 0xc0000200, "TEST-NET", 0xffffff00 }, // 192.0.2/24
{ 0xc0000000, "RESERVED", 0xffffff00 }, // 192.0.0/24
+ { 0xc0000000, "6TO4-RELAY", 0xfffffff8 }, // 192.0.0.0/29
{ 0xc0a80000, "PRIVATE", 0xffff0000 }, // 192.168/16
{ 0xa9fe0000, "LINK-LOCAL", 0xffff0000 }, // 169.254/16
{ 0xc6120000, "RESERVED", 0xfffe0000 }, // 198.18/15
diff --git a/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
b/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
index ead4c696f..710d281f5 100644
--- a/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
+++ b/src/modules/nat_traversal/nat_traversal.c
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static NetInfo rfc1918nets[] = {
{"172.16.0.0", 0xac100000UL, 0xfff00000UL},
{"192.168.0.0", 0xc0a80000UL, 0xffff0000UL},
{"100.64.0.0", 0x64400000UL, 0xffc00000UL}, // include rfc6598 shared
address space as technically the same for our purpose
+ {"192.0.0.0", 0xc0000000UL, 0xfffffff8UL}, // include rfc7335 IPv4
Service Continuity Prefix
{NULL, 0UL, 0UL}
};
@@ -2156,4 +2157,4 @@ int mod_register(char *path, int *dlflags, void *p1, void *p2)
{
sr_kemi_modules_add(sr_kemi_nat_traversal_exports);
return 0;
-}
\ No newline at end of file
+}
diff --git a/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c b/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c
index a45588a50..935c981ee 100644
--- a/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c
+++ b/src/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c
@@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ static struct {
{"172.16.0.0", 0, 0xffffffffu << 20},
{"192.168.0.0", 0, 0xffffffffu << 16},
{"100.64.0.0", 0, 0xffffffffu << 22}, /* rfc6598 - cg-nat */
+ {"192.0.0.0", 0, 0xffffffffu << 3}, /* rfc7335 - IPv4 Service
Continuity Prefix */
{NULL, 0, 0}
};
/* clang-format on */
12:29 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini
wrote:
> If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for 192.0.0.0/29
> I think that's a great idea.
...
I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure
out how to do the
appropriate git magic.S
I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
7 Apr
7 Apr
5:25 p.m.
Hi,
It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test()
or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29 subnet as
private.
Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone has
the desire to look into it, https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John
Petrini wrote:
> If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
192.0.0.0/29
> I think that's a great idea.
...
I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to
figure out how to do the
appropriate git magic.S
I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
5:31 p.m.
Hello,
better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs
or closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal
and likely the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference
the old one if there are relevant details.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
Hi,
It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though
either nat_uac_test() or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the
192.0.0.0/29 <http://192.0.0.0/29> subnet as private.
Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if
someone has the desire to look into
it, https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl
<mailto:d.tryba@pocos.nl>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John
Petrini wrote:
> If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check
for
192.0.0.0/29 <http://192.0.0.0/29>
> I think that's a great idea.
...
I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to
figure out how to do the
appropriate git magic.S
I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@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
5:52 p.m.
Hi Daniel,
Voilà: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2277
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs
or closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal and
likely the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference the old
one if there are relevant details.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
Hi,
It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test()
or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29 subnet as
private.
Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone
has the desire to look into it,
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel
Tryba wrote:
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing
Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John
Petrini wrote:
> If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
192.0.0.0/29
> I think that's a great idea.
...
I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to
figure out how to do the
appropriate git magic.S
I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
23 Apr
23 Apr
9:14 p.m.
Hi there,
To finalize this matter, any chance this gets backported to stable branches
now that the new nathelper nat_addr_mode modparam has been tested?
Thanks.
--Sergiu
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Sergiu Pojoga <pojogas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Voilà: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2277
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs
> or closed issues, because they do not pop up in front on the web portal and
> likely the code has changed. In the new issue/PR, you can reference the old
> one if there are relevant details.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case
> involving rfc7335 private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test()
> or more likely fix_nated_sdp() doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29 subnet as
> private.
>
> Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone
> has the desire to look into it,
> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>
> Thanks,
> --Sergiu
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini wrote:
>> > > If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
>> 192.0.0.0/29
>> > > I think that's a great idea.
>> ...
>> > I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure out how to do the
>> > appropriate git magic.S
>>
>> I lied:
>> https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>
24 Apr
24 Apr
2:31 p.m.
Hello,
Thanks for the testing, done for 5.3 branch.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/>
From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Sergiu Pojoga
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:14 PM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] nat_uac_test(8)
Hi there,
To finalize this matter, any chance this gets backported to stable branches now that the
new nathelper nat_addr_mode modparam has been tested?
Thanks.
--Sergiu
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Sergiu Pojoga
<pojogas@gmail.com<mailto:pojogas@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Voilà: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2277
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda@gmail.com<mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
better create a new issue, rather than adding comments to old merged PRs or closed issues,
because they do not pop up in front on the web portal and likely the code has changed. In
the new issue/PR, you can reference the old one if there are relevant details.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 07.04.20 17:25, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
Hi,
It's been a while, had the chance to notice only now a live case involving rfc7335
private IPs. It appears as though either nat_uac_test() or more likely fix_nated_sdp()
doesn't catch the 192.0.0.0/29<http://192.0.0.0/29> subnet as private.
Added a comment including sip dump example to the closed PR, if someone has the desire to
look into it, https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
Thanks,
--Sergiu
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:30 AM Daniel Tryba
<d.tryba@pocos.nl<mailto:d.tryba@pocos.nl>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Daniel Tryba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:23:18PM -0400, John Petrini
wrote:
> If you're asking if nat_uac_test should be updated to check for
192.0.0.0/29<http://192.0.0.0/29>
> I think that's a great idea.
...
I'm to lazy^W^Wdon't have the time to figure
out how to do the
appropriate git magic.S
I lied:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1488
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com>
www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
1456
days inactive
2221
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Daniel Tryba -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Henning Westerholt -
John Petrini -
Sergiu Pojoga