[SR-Users] nat_uac_test not recognized command in onreply_route
sos at sokhapkin.dyndns.org
Thu Jan 3 23:36:50 CET 2019
Did you load the module?
On Thursday, January 3, 2019 5:27:12 PM EST Andrew Chen wrote:
Hey it's me again.
So I'm following the instructions in the Kamailio 5.1.x wiki module page for
websocket configuration and it specifically mention to set this block:
xlog("L_INFO", "[CSeq $cs] Is in WS_REPLY.");
xlog("L_INFO", "[CSeq $cs] Sending $rs $rr to $sel(via.host) via
$sel(via.transport) len: $ml");
xlog("L_INFO", "[CSeq $cs] \n$mb \n");
# Do NAT traversal stuff for replies to a WebSocket connection
# - even if it is not behind a NAT!
# This won't be needed in the future if Kamailio and the
# WebSocket client support Outbound and Path.
When I did this and started up Kamailio, it gave me an error:
Jan 3 22:19:43 sjomainkama55 kamailio: ERROR: <core> [core/cfg.y:3309]:
yyparse(): cfg. parser: failed to find command nat_uac_test (params 1)
I moved that if statement to a route block and I was able to start it up.
The wiki page for nathelper module specify this function can be run in
onreply_route as well:
Tries to guess if client's request originated behind a nat. The parameter
determines what heuristics is used.
Meaning of the flags is as follows:
1 - The “Contact” header field is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 or
2 - the "received" test is used: address in the “Via” header is compared
against source IP address of signaling
4 - The Top Most “Via” is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 or RFC6598
8 - The SDP is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 or RFC6598 addresses
16 - Test if the source port is different from the port in the “Via” header
32 - Test if the source IP address of signaling is a RFC1918 or RFC6598
64 - Test if the source connection of signaling is a WebSocket
128 - Test if the “Contact” header URI port differs from the source port of
the request (Warning: this is might be legal or even intended combination in
non NATted scenarios)
All flags can be bitwise combined, the test returns true if any of the tests
identified a NAT.
This function can be used from REQUEST_ROUTE, ONREPLY_ROUTE, FAILURE_ROUTE,
is this some known bug in 5.1.x?
achen at fuze.com
*Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any
attachments may be confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any
attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or
any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the
contents to any other person. Thank you.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sr-users