[SR-Users] force_send_socket and IPv6

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 11:40:08 CET 2011


Hello,

On 12/15/11 11:26 AM, Andreas Granig wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2011 11:10 AM, Andreas Granig wrote:
>> On 12/15/2011 10:19 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>>> ERROR: tm [ut.h:295]: ERROR: uri2dst: failed to resolve "[x::x]"
>>>> :unresolvable A or AAAA request (-7)
>>>>
>>>> Is there something I haven't considered yet? Why would it try a DNS
>>>> lookup for this R-URI?
>>> is it failing over all or is the request forwarded?
>> It's failing overall with "478 Unresolvable destination (478/TM)".
> Actually I get two messages back from the outbound load-balancer
> towards the proxy for the same INVITE, one right after the other:
>
> U 127.0.0.1:5060 ->  127.0.0.1:5080
> SIP/2.0 500 I'm terribly sorry, server error occurred (1/SL).
>
> U 127.0.0.1:5060 ->  127.0.0.1:5080
> SIP/2.0 478 Unresolvable destination (478/TM).
>
> The scenario is this:
>
> [v4user]-(ipv4)->[lb]-(ipv4)->[proxy]-(ipv4)->[lb]-(ipv6)->[v6user]
>
> The problem appears on the last lb hop, so it never sends anything over
> IPv6 to the v6user, but passes back the two errors from above to the
> proxy. I'm trying to dig deeper later today.
trying to figure out the modules involved -- does the INVITE arrive with 
double Route headers on second [lb] or is the [lb] selecting an ipv6 
destination?

Cheers,
Daniel

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




More information about the sr-users mailing list