16 Jan
2012
16 Jan
'12
3:41 p.m.
Hello,
I am trying to implement the following configuration :
- Kamailio as a SIP proxy/registrar behind a one-to-one NAT (port number is
not modified) listening on ports 5060 and 53 (and more ports in the future)
- aliases correctly configured :
alias= udp: public_ip:53
alias= udp: public_ip:5060
alias= udp: hostname:53
alias= udp: hostname:5060
- listen directive correctly on private ip address and both ports :
listen=udp:private_ip:53
listen=udp:private_ip:5060
- advertised_address=public_ip
- record_route_preset("public_ip") is used to announce the public IP
address in the RR header
- user A : registered on port 5060
- user B : registered on port 53
Suppose user A tries to call user B.
The Record-Route header in the INVITE forwarded from Kamailio to user B
should contain the port number on which user B is connected (53), to force
user B to send future requests to that port number. But I have no method to
know which port user B is connected to, and that problem is aggravated when
user B has multiple registrations on different port numbers and parralel
forking is done. Declaring advertised_port doesn't solve the problem. I
cannot force port number 53 in record_route_preset("public_ip:53") since it
wouldn't work when user B calls user A. Using the record_route( ) function,
Kamailio doesn't use the advertised_address to construct the RR header.
Another problem is that the record_route_preset function clears the DID
cookie set by the dialog module, which makes Kamailio fallback to SIP
elements to match the request to an existing dialog, thus dialog matching
becomes slower, and performance is an issue for me.
Any suggestions? I know that one solution would be to run Kamailio with a
public IP address and no NAT, but unfortunately it's not possible.
I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes a public IP address as a
parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and cookie
addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the private IP
address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or that the
record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to construct the RR
header.
Thank you
RA
16 Jan
16 Jan
3:51 p.m.
Hi,
On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes a
public IP address as
a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and cookie
addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the private
IP address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or that
the record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to construct
the RR header.
maybe you are looking for the function record_route_advertised_address()
which is available in git master:
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
3:57 p.m.
I know about record_route_advertised_address("ip:port") function. If I
understood correctly, it inserts a top-most RR header with the public IP if
double RR is enabled. But that doesn't solve the multiple ports problem. I
would get in the SIP header :
Record-Route: <public_ip;lr=on>
Record-Route: <private_ip:port;lr=on>
If user B sees the first Record-Route header, it remembers port=5060 for
future requests.
I cannot manually set the port in the config file since it depends on which
port user B is registered, which I don't have a way to find it.
RA
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:51, Andrew Pogrebennyk
<apogrebennyk(a)sipwise.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi,
On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes
a public IP address as
a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and cookie
addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the private
IP address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or that
the record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to construct
the RR header.
maybe you are looking for the function record_route_advertised_address()
which is available in git master:
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
17 Jan
17 Jan
9:01 p.m.
I just tried the record_route_advertised_address("public_ip").
It doesn't add the port number of the outgoing socket.
Any suggestions?
RA
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:57, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I know about
record_route_advertised_address("ip:port") function. If I
understood correctly, it inserts a top-most RR header with the public IP if
double RR is enabled. But that doesn't solve the multiple ports problem. I
would get in the SIP header :
Record-Route: <public_ip;lr=on>
Record-Route: <private_ip:port;lr=on>
If user B sees the first Record-Route header, it remembers port=5060 for
future requests.
I cannot manually set the port in the config file since it depends on
which port user B is registered, which I don't have a way to find it.
RA
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:51, Andrew Pogrebennyk <
apogrebennyk(a)sipwise.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes
a public IP address as
a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and cookie
addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the private
IP address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or that
the record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to construct
the RR header.
maybe you are looking for the function record_route_advertised_address()
which is available in git master:
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
9:47 p.m.
When you route through usrloc, there is a PV that should be set - forced socket:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#forced_socket
You can check the socket via 'kamctl ul show' command.
If the PV is not populated, check the send attributes:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#send_address_a…
Based on that, you should know through which interface the INVITE
should be sent and therefore you should be able to set the proper
Record-Route header.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I just tried the
record_route_advertised_address("public_ip").
It doesn't add the port number of the outgoing socket.
Any suggestions?
RA
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:57, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know about record_route_advertised_address("ip:port") function. If I
> understood correctly, it inserts a top-most RR header with the public IP if
> double RR is enabled. But that doesn't solve the multiple ports problem. I
> would get in the SIP header :
>
> Record-Route: <public_ip;lr=on>
> Record-Route: <private_ip:port;lr=on>
>
> If user B sees the first Record-Route header, it remembers port=5060 for
> future requests.
> I cannot manually set the port in the config file since it depends on
> which port user B is registered, which I don't have a way to find it.
>
> RA
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:51, Andrew Pogrebennyk
> <apogrebennyk(a)sipwise.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
>> > I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes a public IP address
>> > as
>> > a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and
>> > cookie
>> > addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the private
>> > IP address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or that
>> > the record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to construct
>> > the RR header.
>>
>> maybe you are looking for the function record_route_advertised_address()
>> which is available in git master:
>> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
>>
18 Jan
18 Jan
11:37 p.m.
Thank you for your reply. I tried what you suggested.
The problem is when there are multiple locations/registrations per AOR on
different ports and doing parallel forking.
Accessing $fs only gives one of the sockets (first or last?), not all of
them.
Accessing $sndfrom gives all of the used outgoing sockets, because it's
populated in the onsedn_route route, which is called for every outgoing
packet, but in onsend_route I can't use record_route functions, neither
mangle with the SIP header anymore in any way. It's too late by the time I
get to onsend_route...
No solution so far..
Reda
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 21:47, Ovidiu Sas <osas(a)voipembedded.com> wrote:
When you route through usrloc, there is a PV that
should be set - forced
socket:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#forced_socket
You can check the socket via 'kamctl ul show' command.
If the PV is not populated, check the send attributes:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#send_address_a…
Based on that, you should know through which interface the INVITE
should be sent and therefore you should be able to set the proper
Record-Route header.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I just tried the
record_route_advertised_address("public_ip").
It doesn't add the port number of the outgoing socket.
Any suggestions?
RA
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:57, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know about record_route_advertised_address("ip:port") function. If I
> understood correctly, it inserts a top-most RR header with the public
IP if
> double RR is enabled. But that doesn't
solve the multiple ports
problem. I
> would get in the SIP header :
>
> Record-Route: <public_ip;lr=on>
> Record-Route: <private_ip:port;lr=on>
>
> If user B sees the first Record-Route header, it remembers port=5060 for
> future requests.
> I cannot manually set the port in the config file since it depends on
> which port user B is registered, which I don't have a way to find it.
>
> RA
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:51, Andrew Pogrebennyk
> <apogrebennyk(a)sipwise.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
>> > I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes a public IP address
>> > as
>> > a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and
>> > cookie
>> > addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the
private
>> > IP address on which Kamailio listens
with a public IP address. Or
that
>> > the record_route( ) function uses
the advertised_address to construct
>> > the RR header.
>>
>> maybe you are looking for the function
record_route_advertised_address()
>> which is available in git master:
>> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
>>
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
11:45 p.m.
Test them in branch_route:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/3.2.x/core#branch_route
and set the Record-Route header there, for each individual branch.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your reply. I tried what you suggested.
The problem is when there are multiple locations/registrations per AOR on
different ports and doing parallel forking.
Accessing $fs only gives one of the sockets (first or last?), not all of
them.
Accessing $sndfrom gives all of the used outgoing sockets, because it's
populated in the onsedn_route route, which is called for every outgoing
packet, but in onsend_route I can't use record_route functions, neither
mangle with the SIP header anymore in any way. It's too late by the time I
get to onsend_route...
No solution so far..
Reda
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 21:47, Ovidiu Sas <osas(a)voipembedded.com> wrote:
>
> When you route through usrloc, there is a PV that should be set - forced
> socket:
> http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#forced_socket
> You can check the socket via 'kamctl ul show' command.
> If the PV is not populated, check the send attributes:
>
> http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#send_address_a…
> Based on that, you should know through which interface the INVITE
> should be sent and therefore you should be able to set the proper
> Record-Route header.
>
> Regards,
> Ovidiu Sas
>
> --
> VoIP Embedded, Inc.
> http://www.voipembedded.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just tried the record_route_advertised_address("public_ip").
> > It doesn't add the port number of the outgoing socket.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > RA
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:57, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I know about record_route_advertised_address("ip:port") function.
If I
> >> understood correctly, it inserts a top-most RR header with the public
> >> IP if
> >> double RR is enabled. But that doesn't solve the multiple ports
> >> problem. I
> >> would get in the SIP header :
> >>
> >> Record-Route: <public_ip;lr=on>
> >> Record-Route: <private_ip:port;lr=on>
> >>
> >> If user B sees the first Record-Route header, it remembers port=5060
> >> for
> >> future requests.
> >> I cannot manually set the port in the config file since it depends on
> >> which port user B is registered, which I don't have a way to find it.
> >>
> >> RA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:51, Andrew Pogrebennyk
> >> <apogrebennyk(a)sipwise.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
> >>> > I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes a public IP
> >>> > address
> >>> > as
> >>> > a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and
> >>> > cookie
> >>> > addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the
> >>> > private
> >>> > IP address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or
> >>> > that
> >>> > the record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to
> >>> > construct
> >>> > the RR header.
> >>>
> >>> maybe you are looking for the function
> >>> record_route_advertised_address()
> >>> which is available in git master:
> >>> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
19 Jan
19 Jan
1 a.m.
Okay, it seems we're on the right track.. BUT
This is my code in the branch_route
if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE")){
$avp(s:fs) = $fs;
$avp(s:Rp) = $Rp;
avp_subst("$avp(s:fs)", "/(.*):(.*):(.*)/\3/");
#xlog("fs: $avp(s:fs) | Rp: $avp(s:Rp)");
if ($avp(s:fs) == $avp(s:Rp)) {
record_route_preset("PUBLIC_IP:$avp(s:fs)");
return;
}
record_route_preset("PUBLIC_IP:$avp(s:fs)",
"PUBLIC_IP:$avp(s:Rp)");
}
return;
$avp(s:fs) is the outbound socket, on which I apply the avp_subst function
to extract only the outbound port number Kamailio should send from.
$avp(s:Rp) is the inbound port, the port on which Kamailio received the
INVITE.
Then if the above port numbers are equal, I do only one record route. If
not, I do double record routing, one per port number.
The problem is that for the first branch, everything works fine. But for
the subsequent branches, I get the following error :
ERROR: rr [rr_mod.c:256]: Duble attempt to record-route
It seems that for subsequent branches, Kamailio detects that it already
record routed the first branch, so gives an error and doesn't record route.
Reda
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 23:45, Ovidiu Sas <osas(a)voipembedded.com> wrote:
Test them in branch_route:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/3.2.x/core#branch_route
and set the Record-Route header there, for each individual branch.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your reply. I tried what you
suggested.
The problem is when there are multiple locations/registrations per AOR on
different ports and doing parallel forking.
Accessing $fs only gives one of the sockets (first or last?), not all of
them.
Accessing $sndfrom gives all of the used outgoing sockets, because it's
populated in the onsedn_route route, which is called for every outgoing
packet, but in onsend_route I can't use record_route functions, neither
mangle with the SIP header anymore in any way. It's too late by the time
I
get to onsend_route...
No solution so far..
Reda
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 21:47, Ovidiu Sas <osas(a)voipembedded.com> wrote:
>
> When you route through usrloc, there is a PV that should be set - forced
> socket:
>
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#forced_socket
> You can check the socket via 'kamctl ul
show' command.
> If the PV is not populated, check the send attributes:
>
>
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#send_address_a…
> Based on that, you should know through which
interface the INVITE
> should be sent and therefore you should be able to set the proper
> Record-Route header.
>
> Regards,
> Ovidiu Sas
>
> --
> VoIP Embedded, Inc.
> http://www.voipembedded.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > I just tried the
record_route_advertised_address("public_ip").
> > It doesn't add the port number of the outgoing socket.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > RA
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:57, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> I know about record_route_advertised_address("ip:port") function.
If
I
> >> understood correctly, it inserts a
top-most RR header with the public
> >> IP if
> >> double RR is enabled. But that doesn't solve the multiple ports
> >> problem. I
> >> would get in the SIP header :
> >>
> >> Record-Route: <public_ip;lr=on>
> >> Record-Route: <private_ip:port;lr=on>
> >>
> >> If user B sees the first Record-Route header, it remembers port=5060
> >> for
> >> future requests.
> >> I cannot manually set the port in the config file since it depends on
> >> which port user B is registered, which I don't have a way to find it.
> >>
> >> RA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:51, Andrew Pogrebennyk
> >> <apogrebennyk(a)sipwise.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 01/16/2012 03:41 PM, Reda Aouad wrote:
> >>> > I suggest that the function record_route( ) takes a public IP
> >>> > address
> >>> > as
> >>> > a parameter, still doing what it does (correct record routing and
> >>> > cookie
> >>> > addition did=xxx and loose route lr=on), but only replacing the
> >>> > private
> >>> > IP address on which Kamailio listens with a public IP address. Or
> >>> > that
> >>> > the record_route( ) function uses the advertised_address to
> >>> > construct
> >>> > the RR header.
> >>>
> >>> maybe you are looking for the function
> >>> record_route_advertised_address()
> >>> which is available in git master:
> >>> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/jZFTGE0yjPqCTTcAkzuf
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
22 Jan
22 Jan
12:19 a.m.
After endless tests, I tried to replace record_route_preset with insert_hf,
writing the complete record route headers. A light started to come out of
the tunnel.....
Suppose User A is registered to port 53, User B to port 5060.
In the case of double record route, when A sends an INVITE to B, I write
the following in the SIP header of the INVITE forwarded to B :
Record-Route: <sip:public_ip:5060;r2=on;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:public_ip:53;r2=on;lr=on>
The first transaction, INVITE / 200OK goes well, with Kamailio forwarding
packets correctly from the corresponding socket of each user.
The problem arises when User B sends BYE to the 5060 port, with both route
headers in the SIP header of the BYE. I get the following error :
WARNING: rr [loose.c:747]: no socket found for match second RR
after which Kamailio forwards the BYE from the 5060 socket to User A. User
A being registered on port 53, ignores the packet coming with source port
5060. The BYE is never replied to.
I guess that means that Kamailio is not able to find the private_ip:53
socket from the public_ip:53 record-route header.
I hope it was clear.
I think there's a fundamental issue with running Kamailio behind NAT and
listening on multiple port numbers. Am I the only one suffering from this
type of configuration?
(Part of the problem is also tied to dumb ALG NAT routers which try to
out-smart SIP servers, without which I wouldn't run Kamailio on multiple
ports, and life would be much easier)
RA
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:00, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, it seems we're on the right track.. BUT
This is my code in the branch_route
if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE")){
$avp(s:fs) = $fs;
$avp(s:Rp) = $Rp;
avp_subst("$avp(s:fs)", "/(.*):(.*):(.*)/\3/");
#xlog("fs: $avp(s:fs) | Rp: $avp(s:Rp)");
if ($avp(s:fs) == $avp(s:Rp)) {
record_route_preset("PUBLIC_IP:$avp(s:fs)");
return;
}
record_route_preset("PUBLIC_IP:$avp(s:fs)",
"PUBLIC_IP:$avp(s:Rp)");
}
return;
$avp(s:fs) is the outbound socket, on which I apply the avp_subst function
to extract only the outbound port number Kamailio should send from.
$avp(s:Rp) is the inbound port, the port on which Kamailio received the
INVITE.
Then if the above port numbers are equal, I do only one record route. If
not, I do double record routing, one per port number.
The problem is that for the first branch, everything works fine. But for
the subsequent branches, I get the following error :
ERROR: rr [rr_mod.c:256]: Duble attempt to record-route
It seems that for subsequent branches, Kamailio detects that it already
record routed the first branch, so gives an error and doesn't record route.
Reda
24 Jun
24 Jun
7:28 p.m.
Hi Reda
A bit late for a reply but I found your post recently and it helped me
to solve a similar problem, so I wanted to share one possible
solution.
On 21 January 2012 23:19, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
After endless tests, I tried to replace
record_route_preset with insert_hf,
writing the complete record route headers. A light started to come out of
the tunnel.....
Suppose User A is registered to port 53, User B to port 5060.
In the case of double record route, when A sends an INVITE to B, I write the
following in the SIP header of the INVITE forwarded to B :
Record-Route: <sip:public_ip:5060;r2=on;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:public_ip:53;r2=on;lr=on>
The first transaction, INVITE / 200OK goes well, with Kamailio forwarding
packets correctly from the corresponding socket of each user.
The problem arises when User B sends BYE to the 5060 port, with both route
headers in the SIP header of the BYE. I get the following error :
WARNING: rr [loose.c:747]: no socket found for match second RR
after which Kamailio forwards the BYE from the 5060 socket to User A. User A
being registered on port 53, ignores the packet coming with source port
5060. The BYE is never replied to.
I guess that means that Kamailio is not able to find the private_ip:53
socket from the public_ip:53 record-route header.
I hope it was clear.
One way to get around this is to populate the RR with a hostname
instead of an address. Then you can configure it so that the external
clients resolve public_ip but the Kamailio server itself resolves
private_ip. This can be done through an entry in /etc/hosts to
override the public DNS entry.
Not exactly elegant but it works for me.
I think there's a fundamental issue with running
Kamailio behind NAT and
listening on multiple port numbers. Am I the only one suffering from this
type of configuration?
(Part of the problem is also tied to dumb ALG NAT routers which try to
out-smart SIP servers, without which I wouldn't run Kamailio on multiple
ports, and life would be much easier)
Regards,
Richard
26 Jun
26 Jun
2:51 p.m.
Thanks Richard for the tip :)
Reda
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Richard Brady <rnbrady(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Reda
A bit late for a reply but I found your post recently and it helped me
to solve a similar problem, so I wanted to share one possible
solution.
On 21 January 2012 23:19, Reda Aouad <reda.aouad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
After endless tests, I tried to replace
record_route_preset with
insert_hf,
writing the complete record route headers. A
light started to come out of
the tunnel.....
Suppose User A is registered to port 53, User B to port 5060.
In the case of double record route, when A sends an INVITE to B, I write
the
following in the SIP header of the INVITE
forwarded to B :
Record-Route: <sip:public_ip:5060;r2=on;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:public_ip:53;r2=on;lr=on>
The first transaction, INVITE / 200OK goes well, with Kamailio forwarding
packets correctly from the corresponding socket of each user.
The problem arises when User B sends BYE to the 5060 port, with both
route
headers in the SIP header of the BYE. I get the
following error :
WARNING: rr [loose.c:747]: no socket found for match second RR
after which Kamailio forwards the BYE from the 5060 socket to User A.
User A
being registered on port 53, ignores the packet
coming with source port
5060. The BYE is never replied to.
I guess that means that Kamailio is not able to find the private_ip:53
socket from the public_ip:53 record-route header.
I hope it was clear.
One way to get around this is to populate the RR with a hostname
instead of an address. Then you can configure it so that the external
clients resolve public_ip but the Kamailio server itself resolves
private_ip. This can be done through an entry in /etc/hosts to
override the public DNS entry.
Not exactly elegant but it works for me.
I think there's a fundamental issue with
running Kamailio behind NAT and
listening on multiple port numbers. Am I the only one suffering from this
type of configuration?
(Part of the problem is also tied to dumb ALG NAT routers which try to
out-smart SIP servers, without which I wouldn't run Kamailio on multiple
ports, and life would be much easier)
Regards,
Richard
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
4321
days inactive
4483
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrew Pogrebennyk -
Ovidiu Sas -
Reda Aouad -
Richard Brady