[SR-Users] Wrong Record-Route and Via header fields when TCP is used

Thu Jul 18 08:31:33 CEST 2019

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20190718/ad41ef73/attachment.html>