[SR-Users] Port 5060 omitted in Record-Route

[Lợi Đặng]

Hi Joel, thanks for verification, it was ok to me when using the default
5060 for udp/tcp with port omitted in the RR, the calls should be routed
properly.
But it don't work if i use the same port 5060 for tls (i know this is a bit
weird, but i want to re-use the port due to customer firewall restriction),
the port is still omitted and `ACK/BYE` routed wrongly to
*MY_ADDR;transport=tls* (5061).

I only want to make sure whether it is not able to explicitly add 5060 port
to the RR when using tls or i just make it wrong with my configuration.

rgds,
Loi Dang Thanh
Phone : +84. 774.735.448
Email : loi.dangthanh at gmail.com


On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Joel Serrano <joel at textplus.com> wrote:

> By SIP definition if the port is the default (5060 for udp/tcp, 5061 for
> tls) it's not mandatory, that's why if you choose any other port you
> specifically see it in the RR.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:30 AM Lợi Đặng <loi.dangthanh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all, i was using kamailio 4.2.1 located in 2 networks
>>
>>> listen = tcp:MY_ADDR:5060 advertise MY_ADDR:5060
>>> listen = tls:MY_ADDR:5061 advertise PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061
>>
>>
>> when the call made from the inside network to out side, running
>> `record_route()` resulted in 2 Record-Route headers added
>> (enable_double_rr=1)
>>
>> Record-Route: PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061;transport=tls;lr
>>> Record-Route: MY_ADDR;transport=tcp;lr
>>
>>
>> That was totally fine omitting the port in the first Record-Route when
>> using tcp (or udp) on the first realm, but when i start switching to tls,
>> it caused trouble
>>
>> Record-Route: PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061;transport=tls;lr
>>> Record-Route: MY_ADDR;transport=tls;lr
>>
>>
>> The client is then told to send ACK/BYE to `MY_ADDR;transport=tls`
>> located at `MY_ADDR:5061` as per rfc3263, then the call would failed.
>>
>> I had another try with
>> `record_route_preset("PUBLIC_NAT_ADDR:5061;transport=tls",
>> "MY_ADDR:5060;transport=tls");`, it really did add what i want with
>> explicit 5060 port on RR, `ACK/BYE` travel on the correct path, but
>> `loose_route()` only consumes the local `Route` header (it should consume
>> 2). So my assumption is to stick with `record_route()` function to make
>> `loose_route()` work properly.
>>
>> I tried using another port on the local realm, e.g: 5062 and the port is
>> explicitly added to the Record-Route header `MY_ADDR:5062;transport=tls;lr`
>> So is `5060` couldn't be explicitly added to the inbound Record-Route, or
>> i just missed something?
>>
>> Any help will be appreciated.
>>
>> P/S: I also tried 4.4.7 and it still omit my 5060 port in the RR.
>>
>> rgds,
>> Loi Dang Thanh
>> Phone : +84. 774.735.448
>> Email : loi.dangthanh at gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20190329/23f295cb/attachment.html>