[SR-Users] Kamailio does not add port number to addresses in Via, Record-Route headers
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
miconda at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 09:27:38 CET 2017
OK -- good it was sorted out.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 12.12.17 02:22, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> Indeed this issue does not manifest at all. I'm awfully sorry for the
> false alarm, and on release day no less!
>
> The problem was there was a lingering DNAT rule in iptables, which
> would translate port 5066 to port 5060. The deployment script injected
> this as it was carried over from our legacy platform.
>
> Of course, I kept banging my head against the wall here because sngrep
> wouldn't show the DNAT's effect as it captures traffic from the NIC
> directly: it would show a REGISTER arriving on 5066, but the dport was
> masqueraded before being handed over to kamailio. Similarly for the
> outgoing INVITE.
>
> NAT is wrong in so many ways... :-)
>
> BR,
> George
>
> On 11 December 2017 at 18:17, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <miconda at gmail.com <mailto:miconda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I did a quick test and all looks fine, ports are set in via and
> record-route, in my config I have:
>
> record_route();
>
> $fs="udp:127.0.0.1:5080 <http://127.0.0.1:5080>";
> $du = "sip:127.0.0.1:9";
> t_relay();
> exit;
>
> Then sending an OPTIONS resulted in the trace shown below.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> U 2017/12/11 17:14:47.108430 127.0.0.1:56729
> <http://127.0.0.1:56729> -> 127.0.0.1:5060 <http://127.0.0.1:5060>
> OPTIONS sip:test at 127.0.0.1 SIP/2.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 192.168.178.84:62516;branch=z9hG4bK.3aaddf68;rport;alias.
> From: sip:sipsak at 192.168.178.84:62516;tag=16d1c24.
> To: sip:test at 127.0.0.1.
> Call-ID: 23927844 at 192.168.178.84 <mailto:23927844 at 192.168.178.84>.
> CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
> Contact: sip:sipsak at 192.168.178.84:62516.
> Content-Length: 0.
> Max-Forwards: 70.
> User-Agent: sipsak 0.9.7pre.
> Accept: text/plain.
> .
>
>
> U 2017/12/11 17:14:51.010251 127.0.0.1:5080
> <http://127.0.0.1:5080> -> 127.0.0.1:9 <http://127.0.0.1:9>
> OPTIONS sip:test at 127.0.0.1 SIP/2.0.
> Record-Route: <sip:127.0.0.1:5080;r2=on;lr>.
> Record-Route: <sip:127.0.0.1;r2=on;lr>.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 127.0.0.1:5080;branch=z9hG4bK61bd.b2882fea15c488761489f8ef588efbe1.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 192.168.178.84:62516;received=127.0.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK.3aaddf68;rport=56729;alias.
> From: sip:sipsak at 192.168.178.84:62516;tag=16d1c24.
> To: sip:test at 127.0.0.1.
> Call-ID: 23927844 at 192.168.178.84 <mailto:23927844 at 192.168.178.84>.
> CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
> Contact: sip:sipsak at 192.168.178.84:62516.
> Content-Length: 0.
> Max-Forwards: 69.
> User-Agent: sipsak 0.9.7pre.
> Accept: text/plain.
> .
>
>
> On 11.12.17 16:37, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have the following issue in my configuration, tested with
>> 5.2.0-rc1 so far:
>>
>> At some point, I set the $fs pseudovariable to force a request to
>> be relayed through a specific socket. Although this is honoured
>> by kamailio (i.e. the request does indeed leave the kamailio host
>> from the respective socket), the port number is not added to the
>> Via and RR headers. As a result, all replies to the request, as
>> well as all subsequent requests from the other SIP UA are relayed
>> to the default port, 5060. Here's an example:
>>
>> SIP UAC to kamailio:
>> INVITE 192.168.1.1:5060 <http://192.168.1.1:5060> --->
>> 192.168.1.254:5060 <http://192.168.1.254:5060>
>> Kamailio to UAS ($fs is set):
>> INVITE 2.2.2.2:5066 <http://2.2.2.2:5066> ---> 3.3.3.3:5060
>> <http://3.3.3.3:5060>
>> Topmost Via in request relayed by kamailio is:
>> SIP/2.0/UDP 2.2.2.2;branch=aaaaaaaaaaaaaa <- port 5066 is not
>> added
>> Topmost RR in request relayed by kamailio is:
>> <sip:2.2.2.2;r2=on;lr;did=bbbbbbb;nat=yes> <- port 5066 is not
>> added
>> RESULT: Reply from UAS is sent to 2.2.2.2:5060 <http://2.2.2.2:5060>
>>
>> Is this behaviour valid? Am I missing anything? Kamailio is
>> configured to listen on both sockets on IP 2.2.2.2, namely: a)
>> udp:2.2.2.2:5060 <http://2.2.2.2:5060> and b) 2.2.2.2:5066
>> <http://2.2.2.2:5066>. Thanks.
>>
>> BR,
>> George
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>> <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
> Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20171212/5d61fe88/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list