Wrong Record-Route and Via header fields when TCP is used

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher...

Kamailio v5.2.4 Released

Leonid Fainshtein

4 Jul 2019 4 Jul '19

5:20 p.m.

Hi, Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different networks. I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is implicitly set to "1". The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 According to the "rr" module documentation, function record_route() should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This works as expected in case of UDP protocol: INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks like this: INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f There are two problems there: a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". Is it a bug? Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein

Show replies by date

Leonid Fainshtein

8 Jul 8 Jul

7:21 p.m.

I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html): "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there should be some differences between the two servers. If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out the traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing rules that allow going from that interface to the target address." Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31 The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and sent out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route fields... Best regards, Leonid On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

...

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

8:01 p.m.

Hello, when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...) what is shown as source address for outbound leg? Cheers, Daniel On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote:

...

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

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

9:23 p.m.

Hello, The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and also in sngrep. Thank you, Leonid On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello, when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...) what is shown as source address for outbound leg? Cheers, Daniel On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote:

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

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

9 Jul 9 Jul

8:53 a.m.

...

Hello, The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and also in sngrep. Thank you, Leonid On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...) > what is shown as source address for outbound leg? > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: >> https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html): >> >> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there should be >> some differences between the two servers. >> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out the >> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing rules that >> allow going from that interface to the target address." >> >> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: >> >> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static >> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1 >> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1 >> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31 >> >> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and sent >> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). >> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The >> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route >> fields... >> >> Best regards, >> Leonid >> >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein >> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different networks. >>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is implicitly set to "1". >>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 >>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 >>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 >>> >>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function record_route() >>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is >>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This works as >>> expected in case of UDP protocol: >>> >>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 >>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>> 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 >>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d >>> >>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks like this: >>> >>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 >>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> >>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >>> 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3 >>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f >>> >>> There are two problems there: >>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted >>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address >>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN >>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". >>> >>> Is it a bug? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leonid Fainshtein >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

10 Jul 10 Jul

8:15 a.m.

...

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

17 Jul 17 Jul

5:27 p.m.

Dear Daniel, Did you have a chance to check the traces? Best regards, Leonid On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

...

Hello, set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here all the log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the request till it sends it out. Some further questions: - do you use any force send socket option? - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket attribute set? Cheers, Daniel On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > Hello, > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and > also in sngrep. > > Thank you, > Leonid > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...) >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: >>>

https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html):

>>> >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there

should be

>>> some differences between the two servers. >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out

the

>>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing

rules that

>>> allow going from that interface to the target address." >>> >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: >>> >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static >>> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1 >>> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1 >>> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31 >>> >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and

sent

>>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). >>> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The >>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route >>> fields... >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leonid >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein >>> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different

networks.

>>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is implicitly

set to "1".

>>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 >>>> >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function record_route() >>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This works

>>>> expected in case of UDP protocol: >>>> >>>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 >>>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>>> 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060

;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d

>>>> >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks

like this:

>>>> >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >>>>

10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060

;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f

>>> >>> There are two problems there: >>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted >>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address >>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN >>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". >>> >>> Is it a bug? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leonid Fainshtein >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

18 Jul 18 Jul

8:31 a.m.

...

Dear Daniel, Did you have a chance to check the traces? Best regards, Leonid On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

set?

Cheers, Daniel On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > Hello, > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and > also in sngrep. > > Thank you, > Leonid > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...) >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: >>>

https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html):

>>> >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there

should be

>>> some differences between the two servers. >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out

the

>>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing

rules that

sent

networks.

>>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is

implicitly set to "1".

works as

;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d

>>>> >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks

like this:

>>>> >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >>>>

10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060

;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

2:09 p.m.

Yes, I have. Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear Daniel, Did you have a chance to check the traces? Best regards, Leonid On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

Hello, set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here all

the

log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the

request

till it sends it out. Some further questions: - do you use any force send socket option? - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket attribute

set?

https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html ):

>>> >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there

should be

>>> some differences between the two servers. >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing

out the

>>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing

rules that

sent

networks.

>>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is

implicitly set to "1".

>>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 >>>> >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function

record_route()

>>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This

works as

;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d

>>>> >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks

like this:

>>>> >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >>>>

10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060

;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f

>>>> >>>> There are two problems there: >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted >>>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address >>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN >>>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". >>>> >>>> Is it a bug? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Leonid Fainshtein >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> -- >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

21 Jul 21 Jul

8:35 a.m.

Can you load debugger module and enable cfgtrace to see the actions executed in config file for such INVITE - reproduce and send the log messages. Might be an effect of something done there. Did I asked if you have IP route from the local IP appearing in Record-Route to the target IP address? Kamailio has the rule of trying to reuse first the local ip where the request was received also for sending out. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

...

Yes, I have. Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla < miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Daniel, Did you have a chance to check the traces? Best regards, Leonid On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

Hello Daniel, The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below: http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via dispatcher in this particular call flow. I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are defined in the Kamailio configuration. Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs configured: 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic ens32 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0 The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from 192.168.9.103 If I define: listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060 listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060 listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060 listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060 Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap. If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here all the > log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the request > till it sends it out. > > Some further questions: > > - do you use any force send socket option? > - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket attribute set? > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > > Hello, > > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and > > also in sngrep. > > > > Thank you, > > Leonid > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla > > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...) > >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Daniel > >> > >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html ): > >>> > >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there should be > >>> some differences between the two servers. > >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out the > >>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing rules that > >>> allow going from that interface to the target address." > >>> > >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: > >>> > >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static > >>> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1 > >>> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1 > >>> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31 > >>> > >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and sent > >>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). > >>> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The > >>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route > >>> fields... > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Leonid > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein > >>> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different networks. > >>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is implicitly set to "1". > >>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 > >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 > >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 > >>>> > >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function record_route() > >>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is > >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This works as > >>>> expected in case of UDP protocol: > >>>> > >>>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > >>>> 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060 ;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d > >>>> > >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks like this: > >>>> > >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP > >>>> 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3 > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060 ;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f > >>>> > >>>> There are two problems there: > >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted > >>>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address > >>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN > >>>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". > >>>> > >>>> Is it a bug? > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> Leonid Fainshtein > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > >>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > >> -- > >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > >> > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

12:26 p.m.

Hello Daniel, The traces and the simplified config file can be downloaded by using the link below: http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/2019-jul-21.tar.gz Regarding to an IP route from the local IP appearing in Record-Route to the target IP. I don't have a special route for it. But the net.ipv4.ip_forward is enabled in the system. Anyway, I'm sending you IP addresses and the current routing table: # ip a 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic ens32 valid_lft 116999sec preferred_lft 116999sec inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fead:afe9/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::501d:dbff:fe72:876e/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 5: vethHT3VX5@if4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue master lxdbr0 state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0 inet6 fe80::fcd8:26ff:fee7:21dc/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever # ip r default via 192.168.0.1 dev ens32 proto dhcp src 192.168.9.103 metric 100 10.28.80.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.28.80.1 192.168.0.0/20 dev ens32 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.9.103 192.168.0.1 dev ens32 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.9.103 metric 100 Thank you, Leonid On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:35 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes, I have. Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla < miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Daniel, Did you have a chance to check the traces? Best regards, Leonid On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: > Hello Daniel, > The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below: > > http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz > > I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via > dispatcher in this particular call flow. > I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are > defined in the Kamailio configuration. > Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs > configured: > > 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel > state UP group default qlen 1000 > link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic ens32 > 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue > state UP group default qlen 1000 > link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0 > > The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from 192.168.9.103 > > If I define: > listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060 > listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060 > listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060 > listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060 > > Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap. > If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE > request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap > > Best regards, > Leonid Fainshtein > Xorcom Ltd > > Best regards, > Leonid Fainshtein > Xorcom Ltd > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here all > the > > log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the > request > > till it sends it out. > > > > Some further questions: > > > > - do you use any force send socket option? > > - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket attribute > set? > > > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > > > On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > > > Hello, > > > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump > and > > > also in sngrep. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Leonid > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla > > > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, > ...) > > >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Daniel > > >> > > >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > > >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: > > >>> > https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html > ): > > >>> > > >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there > should be > > >>> some differences between the two servers. > > >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing > out the > > >>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing > rules that > > >>> allow going from that interface to the target address." > > >>> > > >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: > > >>> > > >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static > > >>> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src > 10.159.65.1 > > >>> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1 > > >>> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31 > > >>> > > >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) > and sent > > >>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). > > >>> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The > > >>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route > > >>> fields... > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Leonid > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein > > >>> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different > networks. > > >>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is > implicitly set to "1". > > >>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 > > >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 > > >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function > record_route() > > >>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is > > >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This > works as > > >>>> expected in case of UDP protocol: > > >>>> > > >>>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 > > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> > > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> > > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > > >>>> > 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 > > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060 > ;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d > > >>>> > > >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message > looks like this: > > >>>> > > >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 > > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> > > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP > > >>>> > 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3 > > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060 > ;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f > > >>>> > > >>>> There are two problems there: > > >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted > > >>>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address > > >>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the > LAN > > >>>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". > > >>>> > > >>>> Is it a bug? > > >>>> > > >>>> Best regards, > > >>>> Leonid Fainshtein > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > > >>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org > > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > >> -- > > >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > > >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > > >> > > -- > > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > > >

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

14 Aug 14 Aug

1:37 p.m.

Hello Daniel, Should I open a bug regarding this issue? Thank you, Leonid On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:26 PM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

...

Yes, I have. Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla < miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hello, traveling, so not much time available ... I looked over the logs when expected socket is not used, I couldn't spot any message about selecting the socket, so there is a route from them "wrong" socket to the destination. Do you have "mhomed=1" in kamailio.cfg? Cheers, Daniel On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 5:27 PM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: > Dear Daniel, > Did you have a chance to check the traces? > > Best regards, > Leonid > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < > leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: > >> Hello Daniel, >> The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below: >> >> http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz >> >> I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via >> dispatcher in this particular call flow. >> I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are >> defined in the Kamailio configuration. >> Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs >> configured: >> >> 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel >> state UP group default qlen 1000 >> link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >> inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic >> ens32 >> 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue >> state UP group default qlen 1000 >> link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >> inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0 >> >> The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from 192.168.9.103 >> >> If I define: >> listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060 >> listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060 >> listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060 >> listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060 >> >> Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap. >> If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE >> request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap >> >> Best regards, >> Leonid Fainshtein >> Xorcom Ltd >> >> Best regards, >> Leonid Fainshtein >> Xorcom Ltd >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla >> <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here >> all the >> > log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the >> request >> > till it sends it out. >> > >> > Some further questions: >> > >> > - do you use any force send socket option? >> > - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket >> attribute set? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Daniel >> > >> > On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >> > > Hello, >> > > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump >> and >> > > also in sngrep. >> > > >> > > Thank you, >> > > Leonid >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla >> > > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> Hello, >> > >> >> > >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, >> ...) >> > >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> Daniel >> > >> >> > >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >> > >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: >> > >>> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html >> ): >> > >>> >> > >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there >> should be >> > >>> some differences between the two servers. >> > >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing >> out the >> > >>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal >> routing rules that >> > >>> allow going from that interface to the target address." >> > >>> >> > >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: >> > >>> >> > >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static >> > >>> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src >> 10.159.65.1 >> > >>> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1 >> > >>> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src >> 192.168.0.31 >> > >>> >> > >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) >> and sent >> > >>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). >> > >>> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The >> > >>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route >> > >>> fields... >> > >>> >> > >>> Best regards, >> > >>> Leonid >> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein >> > >>> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: >> > >>>> Hi, >> > >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different >> networks. >> > >>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is >> implicitly set to "1". >> > >>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 >> > >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 >> > >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function >> record_route() >> > >>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request >> is >> > >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This >> works as >> > >>>> expected in case of UDP protocol: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 >> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >> > >>>> >> 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 >> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060 >> ;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d >> > >>>> >> > >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message >> looks like this: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 >> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> >> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >> > >>>> >> 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3 >> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060 >> ;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f >> > >>>> >> > >>>> There are two problems there: >> > >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted >> > >>>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address >> > >>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the >> LAN >> > >>>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Is it a bug? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Best regards, >> > >>>> Leonid Fainshtein >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> > >>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> > >> -- >> > >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >> > >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> > >> >> > -- >> > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >> > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> > >> > -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

3:11 p.m.

...

Hello Daniel, Should I open a bug regarding this issue? Thank you, Leonid On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:26 PM Leonid Fainshtein <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com <mailto:leonid.fainshtein@xorcom.com>> wrote: Hello Daniel, The traces and the simplified config file can be downloaded by using the link below: http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/2019-jul-21.tar.gz Regarding to an IP route from the local IP appearing in Record-Route to the target IP. I don't have a special route for it. But the net.ipv4.ip_forward is enabled in the system. Anyway, I'm sending you IP addresses and the current routing table: # ip a 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.9.103/20 <http://192.168.9.103/20> brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic ens32 valid_lft 116999sec preferred_lft 116999sec inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fead:afe9/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 10.28.80.1/24 <http://10.28.80.1/24> scope global lxdbr0 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::501d:dbff:fe72:876e/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 5: vethHT3VX5@if4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue master lxdbr0 state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0 inet6 fe80::fcd8:26ff:fee7:21dc/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever # ip r default via 192.168.0.1 dev ens32 proto dhcp src 192.168.9.103 metric 100 10.28.80.0/24 <http://10.28.80.0/24> dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.28.80.1 192.168.0.0/20 <http://192.168.0.0/20> dev ens32 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.9.103 192.168.0.1 dev ens32 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.9.103 metric 100 Thank you, Leonid On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:35 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Can you load debugger module and enable cfgtrace to see the actions executed in config file for such INVITE - reproduce and send the log messages. Might be an effect of something done there. Did I asked if you have IP route from the local IP appearing in Record-Route to the target IP address? Kamailio has the rule of trying to reuse first the local ip where the request was received also for sending out. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Leonid Fainshtein <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com <mailto:leonid.fainshtein@xorcom.com>> wrote: Yes, I have. Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, traveling, so not much time available ... I looked over the logs when expected socket is not used, I couldn't spot any message about selecting the socket, so there is a route from them "wrong" socket to the destination. Do you have "mhomed=1" in kamailio.cfg? Cheers, Daniel On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 5:27 PM Leonid Fainshtein <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com <mailto:leonid.fainshtein@xorcom.com>> wrote: Dear Daniel, Did you have a chance to check the traces? Best regards, Leonid On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com <mailto:leonid.fainshtein@xorcom.com>> wrote: Hello Daniel, The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below: http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via dispatcher in this particular call flow. I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are defined in the Kamailio configuration. Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs configured: 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.9.103/20 <http://192.168.9.103/20> brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic ens32 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 10.28.80.1/24 <http://10.28.80.1/24> scope global lxdbr0 The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from 192.168.9.103 If I define: listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060 <http://10.28.80.1:5060> listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060 <http://10.28.80.1:5060> listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060 <http://192.168.9.103:5060> listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060 <http://192.168.9.103:5060> Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap. If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello, set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce

this case. Send here all the

log messages printed by kamailio from the

moment it receives the request

till it sends it out. Some further questions: - do you use any force send socket option? - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes,

is the socket attribute set?

Cheers, Daniel On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: > Hello, > The source address is correct:

192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and

> also in sngrep. > > Thank you, > Leonid > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

> <miconda(a)gmail.com

<mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> Hello, >> >> when you look at the network traffic

9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...)

>> what is shown as source address for

outbound leg?

>> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >>> I just found Daniel's response to a

similar question (ref.:

>>>

https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html):

>>>

> >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there should be

>>> some differences between the two servers. >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected

interface is used for routing out the

>>> traffic, it means that the operating

system has internal routing rules that

>>> allow going from that interface to the

target address."

>>>

> >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table:

>>>

> >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static

>>> 10.159.65.0/24 <http://10.159.65.0/24>

dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1

>>> 172.200.4.0/24 <http://172.200.4.0/24>

dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1

>>> 192.168.0.0/20 <http://192.168.0.0/20>

dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31

>>>

> >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and sent

>>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). >>> I even tried to delete the default route

but nothing helped. The

>>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in

the via and Record-Route > >>> fields...

>>>

> >>> Best regards, > >>> Leonid

>>>

> >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein

>>> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com

<mailto:leonid.fainshtein@xorcom.com>> wrote:

>>>> Hi, >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are

connected to different networks.

>>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the

"enable_double_rr" is implicitly set to "1".

>>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 >>>> >>>> According to the "rr" module

documentation, function record_route()

>>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header

fields when a request is

>>>> accepted on one leg is should go out

via the second leg. This works as

>>>> expected in case of UDP protocol: >>>> >>>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460

<http://sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460>;transport=UDP SIP/2.0

>>>> Record-Route:

<sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191>

>>>> Record-Route:

<sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191>

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>>>

192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP

10.159.65.18:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d

>>>> >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then

the outbound message looks like this:

>>>> >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058

<http://sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058>;transport=tcp SIP/2.0

>>>> Record-Route:

<sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1>

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >>>>

10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3

>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP

10.159.65.18:5060;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f

>>>> >>>> There are two problems there: >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is

inserted

>>>> b) the added "Via" header field

contains the leg "A" IP address

>>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address

(192.168.0.31). In the LAN

>>>> trace I see that in reality the message

was sent from leg "B". > >>>> > >>>> Is it a bug? > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> Leonid Fainshtein

>>>

_______________________________________________

>>> 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

>> -- >> 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>

-- 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>

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Leonid Fainshtein

3:18 p.m.

Daniel, Just to make sure: did you try to define the "listen" parameters explicitly? The problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are defined in the Kamailio configuration. When the "listens" are not configured then everything works correctly. So, the problem happens when it is necessary to configure not standard ports for the particular interface(s) ... Thank you, Leonid On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:11 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello, I tried to reproduce a while ago on a system with many network interfaces, but all was fine. I guess it has to do with network/ip routing configuration there. Open the issue, maybe other people will give some input based on their experience. Cheers, Daniel On 14.08.19 13:37, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: Hello Daniel, Should I open a bug regarding this issue? Thank you, Leonid On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:26 PM Leonid Fainshtein < leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote:

Yes, I have. Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein Xorcom Ltd On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla < miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > traveling, so not much time available ... > I looked over the logs when expected socket is not used, I couldn't > spot any message about selecting the socket, so there is a route from them > "wrong" socket to the destination. > > Do you have "mhomed=1" in kamailio.cfg? > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 5:27 PM Leonid Fainshtein < > leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: > >> Dear Daniel, >> Did you have a chance to check the traces? >> >> Best regards, >> Leonid >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein < >> leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello Daniel, >>> The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below: >>> >>> http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz >>> >>> I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via >>> dispatcher in this particular call flow. >>> I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters >>> are >>> defined in the Kamailio configuration. >>> Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs >>> configured: >>> >>> 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel >>> state UP group default qlen 1000 >>> link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >>> inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic >>> ens32 >>> 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue >>> state UP group default qlen 1000 >>> link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >>> inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0 >>> >>> The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from >>> 192.168.9.103 >>> >>> If I define: >>> listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060 >>> listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060 >>> listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060 >>> listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060 >>> >>> Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap. >>> If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE >>> request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leonid Fainshtein >>> Xorcom Ltd >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leonid Fainshtein >>> Xorcom Ltd >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla >>> <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here >>> all the >>> > log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the >>> request >>> > till it sends it out. >>> > >>> > Some further questions: >>> > >>> > - do you use any force send socket option? >>> > - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket >>> attribute set? >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Daniel >>> > >>> > On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >>> > > Hello, >>> > > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump >>> and >>> > > also in sngrep. >>> > > >>> > > Thank you, >>> > > Leonid >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla >>> > > <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >> Hello, >>> > >> >>> > >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, >>> ...) >>> > >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg? >>> > >> >>> > >> Cheers, >>> > >> Daniel >>> > >> >>> > >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >>> > >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.: >>> > >>> >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html >>> ): >>> > >>> >>> > >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there >>> should be >>> > >>> some differences between the two servers. >>> > >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for >>> routing out the >>> > >>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal >>> routing rules that >>> > >>> allow going from that interface to the target address." >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static >>> > >>> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src >>> 10.159.65.1 >>> > >>> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src >>> 172.200.4.1 >>> > >>> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src >>> 192.168.0.31 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) >>> and sent >>> > >>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31). >>> > >>> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. >>> The >>> > >>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and >>> Record-Route >>> > >>> fields... >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Best regards, >>> > >>> Leonid >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein >>> > >>> <leonid.fainshtein(a)xorcom.com> wrote: >>> > >>>> Hi, >>> > >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different >>> networks. >>> > >>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is >>> implicitly set to "1". >>> > >>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1 >>> > >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31 >>> > >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18 >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function >>> record_route() >>> > >>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request >>> is >>> > >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This >>> works as >>> > >>>> expected in case of UDP protocol: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> INVITE sip:2000@192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 >>> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >>> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191> >>> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>> > >>>> >>> 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0 >>> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060 >>> ;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message >>> looks like this: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> INVITE sip:2005@192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 >>> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1> >>> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP >>> > >>>> >>> 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3 >>> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060 >>> ;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> There are two problems there: >>> > >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted >>> > >>>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP >>> address >>> > >>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the >>> LAN >>> > >>>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B". >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Is it a bug? >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Best regards, >>> > >>>> Leonid Fainshtein >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>> > >>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >>> > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>> > >> -- >>> > >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >>> > >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >>> > >> >>> > -- >>> > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com >>> > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >>> > >>> >> > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com > http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1726

days inactive

1767

days old

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

Manage subscription

13 comments

2 participants

tags (0)

participants (2)

Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Leonid Fainshtein