[Kamailio-Users] Multiple SIP Proxy Environment / Socket Information
Brandon Armstead
brandon at cryy.com
Wed Apr 29 11:32:09 CEST 2009
Daniel,
It looks like you helped me find part of the problem, apparently Proxy A
was sharing same branch flag as the one I used to distinguish which proxy it
was. I corrected this and now branch flag for branch 1 is 00000060, and
branch 2 is 00000040, however now both branches are routed appropriately to
the correct server, however the X-Duri (to restore to in the INVITE) is
null. Do I need to save this value into an AVP after lookup("location")?
Or should it be readily available in branch_route[], and for some reason my
variable is null?
P.S. (recap)
Proxy A NAT Branch Flag: 5
Proxy B NAT Branch Flag: 5
(Problem existed as used Flag 5 to distinguish "itself" as proxy) -- changed
this to 4 so now:
Proxy A NAT Branch Flag: 4
Proxy B NAT Branch Flag: 6
Calls are routed to Proxy B
X-Duri: <null> (as it is null in Proxy A). I'm append_hf(X-Duri: $du)
inside of branch_route[].
Thanks!
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/29/2009 11:11 AM, Brandon Armstead wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> No that would be the UAC (I have two clients behind the same NAT). The
>> problem is it looks like the branch flag is not being set for both for some
>> reason (when comparing) even though in the database it is the same?
>>
>
> So you have the brach flag for nat and branch flags for next proxy, right?
> What is the value of branch flag? The value are different indeed, but some
> flags you are looking for might be set. It is easier spot if you print the
> hexa format of the flags rather than decimal one.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> Take a look at the flag= value from each of those logs (this is one call)
>> to a UAC with two registrations line1/line2.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
>> miconda at gmail.com <mailto:miconda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 04/29/2009 10:53 AM, Brandon Armstead wrote:
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Still facing a few challenges and seeing if any further
>> input, I'm specifically trying inaki's suggestions / method,
>> but here are the current problems:
>>
>> sip:/etc/kamailio/m4cfgs# tail -f /var/log/openser.log | grep
>> -v -E 'non-local|repeated' | grep branch_route
>> Apr 29 07:38:05 db06 /sbin/kamailio[21279]:
>> [77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35
>> <mailto:77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35>
>> <mailto:77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35
>> <mailto:77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35>>][branch_route][1]
>> ru=sip:CALLEE at 99.XX.XX.XX:5079 fu=sip:CALLER at sip.example.com<sip%3ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLER at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> >
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLER at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%253ACALLER at sip.example.com<sip%25253ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> >>
>> tu=sip:CALLEE at sip.example.com <sip%3ACALLEE at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLEE at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLEE at sip.example.com>
>> >
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLEE at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLEE at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%253ACALLEE at sip.example.com<sip%25253ACALLEE at sip.example.com>>>
>> si=99.XX.XX.XX
>> flag=96 du=<null>
>>
>>
>> This call is not sent to Proxy B (this is a result of bflag
>> not being set) ???
>>
>> is the proxy B at 99.XX.XX.XX:5079? If not, then set $du to the
>> address of that proxy. It is null in the log above.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>> My question is "Why", I look at the AOR / usrloc and they both
>> have the "same exact flags set", this call is rather sent
>> directly to UAC endpoint.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Apr 29 07:38:05 db06 /sbin/kamailio[21279]:
>> [77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35
>> <mailto:77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35>
>> <mailto:77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35
>> <mailto:77e4c600-147767fb at 172.16.1.35>>][branch_route][2]
>> ru=sip:CALLEE at 99.XX.XX.XX:5062 fu=sip:CALLER at sip.example.com<sip%3ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLER at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> >
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLER at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%253ACALLER at sip.example.com<sip%25253ACALLER at sip.example.com>
>> >>
>> tu=sip:CALLEE at sip.example.com <sip%3ACALLEE at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLEE at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLEE at sip.example.com>
>> >
>> <mailto:sip%3ACALLEE at sip.example.com<sip%253ACALLEE at sip.example.com>
>> <mailto:sip%253ACALLEE at sip.example.com<sip%25253ACALLEE at sip.example.com>>>
>> si=99.XX.XX.XX
>> flag=64 du=sip:PROXY_B;transport=udp;
>>
>>
>> This call is sent to Proxy B (however Proxy B) - however the
>> X-Duri (is null) as it is not existant in Proxy A's branch
>> route? should I save this from right after the
>> lookup("location") result into an avp?
>>
>>
>> Again, thank you for all and any help, thanks!
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Brandon Armstead
>> <brandon at cryy.com <mailto:brandon at cryy.com>
>> <mailto:brandon at cryy.com <mailto:brandon at cryy.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> Klaus, Inaki, Daniel,
>>
>> Thanks! Sorry I did not see this email come through, I'm
>> going to go ahead and give this method a go, and I'll
>> update with
>> the results, I have optimistic views.
>>
>> As for the reason I was rewriting $ru and setting $du to
>> null, is
>> because originally when I just changed $du to the 'destination
>> proxy' it did not seem to work at all (I do not even recall
>> what
>> exactly what was happening) however I decided to just
>> change $ru,
>> and have the other proxy just "lookup" the usrloc information
>> again. Again, this method looks interesting and I'll let
>> you guys
>> know how it goes, thanks for all the input and help!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Brandon.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Klaus Darilion
>> <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Brandon Armstead schrieb:
>>
>> Klaus,
>>
>> So I took you and Inaki's input and essentially
>> constructed a setup like so after the
>> lookup("location") call:
>>
>> if(isbflagset(1)){
>> $du = null;
>> $rd = "P1";
>> } else if(isbflagset(2)){
>> $du = null;
>> $rd = "P2";
>> } else if(isbflagset(3)){
>> $du = null;
>> $rd = "P3";
>> } else if(isbflagset(4)){
>> $du = null;
>> $rd = "P4";
>> }
>>
>>
>> 1. The above code has to be in the branch_route block -
>> otherwise multiple registrations of a single user are not
>> handled correctly.
>>
>> 2. you are rewriting the RURI. You should not do that
>> as some
>> clients wants to the in the RURI the Contact provided
>> during
>> REGISTER.
>>
>> 3. probably you use fix_nated_register() to store the
>> public
>> IP:port of the client too. After lookup, this
>> information is
>> written to DURI. Thus, by setting $du you overwrite
>> this info.
>> You should put it into a special header so that you can
>> restore it in the other proxy.
>>
>> Here a snippet how it should work (untested, no
>> warranty): ( I
>> use the term "originating" proxy for the proxy which
>> received
>> the INVITE and the term "serving" proxy for the proxy which
>> handles the connection/registration of a certain SIP
>> client).
>>
>> e.g:
>> Alice -----INVITE-----> P1------->P2----->Bob2
>> / \
>> / \
>> / V
>> V P3---->Bob3
>> Bob1
>>
>> Bob's client Bob1 is connected to P1.
>> Bob's client Bob2 is connected to P2.
>> Bob's client Bob3 is connected to P3.
>>
>> So, P1 is the originating proxy. P2 is the serving proxy of
>> Bob2. ....
>>
>> We do NAT traversal (note: we must not call
>> fix_nated_contact() for messages sent between the
>> proxies!):
>> the originating proxy for the call-leg to the caller, the
>> serving proxy for the call-leg to the callee.
>> The RTP proxy will be managed by the originating proxy
>> only.
>>
>>
>>
>> route{
>> if (loose_route()) {
>> ... additional loose route processing...
>> if (check_route_param("rtpproxy=yes")) {
>> force_rtp_proxy();
>> setbflag(7);
>> }
>>
>> # downstream: in-dialog request is in the same
>> direction as the
>> # initial request
>> if ( (check_route_param("nat=caller") &&
>> is_direction("downstream"))
>> || (check_route_param("nat=callee") &&
>> is_direction("upstream"))) {
>> fix_nated_contact();
>> } else if (check_route_param("nat=both") {
>> fix_nated_contact();
>> setbflag(8);
>> } else {
>> setbflag(8);
>> }
>>
>> t_on_reply("1");
>> t_relay();
>> exit();
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> # I am proxy 1
>> if ((src_ip=ip.of.proxy.2) || (src_ip=ip.of.proxy.3)...) {
>> # request comes from other proxy, that means I am the
>> # serving proxy
>> # do not lookup(), RURI is already set and
>> # DURI is provided in our X-DURI header
>> $du = $header(X-DURI);
>> # we do not care about an RTP proxy because that's the
>> task
>> of the
>> # proxy which performed the lookup() (the originating
>> proxy)
>> # add some record-route cookie to mark that we should
>> perform
>> # SIP NAT traversal for the callee
>> add_rr_param(";nat=callee");
>> # activate reply_route to fix_nated_contact of callee
>> setbflag(8); # flag 8 = fix contact
>> t_on_reply("1");
>> record_route();
>> t_relay();
>> exit;
>> }
>>
>> ...
>> # a new request - thus I am the originating proxy
>>
>> if ($dU looks like phone number) {
>> ... route to Gateway....
>> exit;
>> }
>>
>> if (!lookup("location")) {
>> sl_send_reply("404","not found");
>> exit;
>> }
>> # activate branch route to have dedicated routing per
>> branch
>> t_on_branch("1");
>>
>> # activate reply route to activate RTP proxy
>> t_on_reply("1");
>>
>> # NAT traversal
>> fix_nated_contact();
>>
>> record_route();
>> t_relay();
>> exit;
>> }
>>
>> branch_route[1]{
>> if(isbflagset(1)){
>> # oh, that's me
>>
>> # add some record-route cookie to mark that we should
>> perform
>> # SIP NAT traversal for the callee and caller
>> add_rr_param(";nat=both");
>>
>> # add some record-route cookie to mark that we are
>> # in charge for the RTP proxy
>> add_rr_param(";rtpproxy=yes");
>>
>> force_rtp_proxy();
>> setbflag(7); # flag 7 = RTP proxy
>> } else {
>> # add some record-route cookie to mark that we should
>> perform
>> # SIP NAT traversal for the caller
>> add_rr_param(";nat=caller");
>>
>> # we have to route the request to the serving proxy
>> # write DURI in the header
>> append_hf("X-DURI: $du");
>> if(isbflagset(2)){
>> $du = sip:ip.of.proxy.2;transport=udp;
>> } else if(isbflagset(3)){
>> $du = sip:ip.of.proxy.3;transport=udp;
>> } else if(isbflagset(4)){
>> $du = sip:ip.of.proxy.4;transport=udp;
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> reply_route[1]{
>> if (isbflagset(7) && has_body("application/sdp")) {
>> force_rtp_proxy()
>> }
>> if (isbflagset(8)) {
>> fix_nated_contact()
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> Note: this code does not care about the received socket
>> of the
>> proxy. Thus it works if the proxy listens only on one port.
>>
>> regards
>> klaus
>>
>>
>> On each Proxy, I changed the code appropriately
>> excluding
>> the Proxy from itself (so it does not forward to
>> itself).
>> I'm noticing weird behavior however as it seems as if
>> what is happening is it created other issues such as:
>>
>> [INCOMING SERVER] -> P1 -> P2 -> P1 -> (loop?)
>>
>> Also I setup this test amongst two development
>> servers (in
>> which case it worked without issues). Once I
>> included in
>> more development instances into the ring it seemed
>> as if
>> the flags were being set when they should not be?
>>
>> I.e. I placed a call FROM UA1 (with bflag 5 SET)
>> From the
>> above example configuration ^ code. If you notice
>> (flag
>> 5) is missing. To UA2 (Flag 3), again this looked
>> to be
>> doing some strange things such as acting as if another
>> flag was set when it should not have been, thus
>> forwarding
>> to the wrong proxy or the wrong proxy order. Do
>> you guys
>> have any further thoughts or input on this? Thanks!
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Klaus Darilion
>> <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>>
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>>>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brandon!
>>
>> Back to the original email ....
>>
>> Brandon Armstead schrieb:
>>
>> Hello guys,
>>
>> Is there a method upon using
>> lookup("location")
>> to also pull
>> out the "socket" information for the original
>> location the UAC
>> registered to, for scenarios of this example:
>>
>> P1 & P2 share same usrloc database.
>>
>> UA1 registers to P1
>> UA2 registers to P2
>>
>> UA1 calls UA2
>>
>> UA1 invites -> P1 -> INVITES -> UA2
>> (bypassing P2
>> -- where the
>> actual nat binding is).
>>
>> Now upon P1 looking up usrloc for UA2, I
>> would like
>> to recognize
>> that P1 is not the Proxy to deliver the
>> call, and
>> forward the
>> request to P2 to send to UA2.
>>
>> So currently I have:
>>
>> UA1 INVITE -> P1 INVITE -> UA2
>>
>> I wish to have:
>>
>> UA1 INVITE -> P1 INVITE -> P2 INVITE -> UA2
>>
>> Is there an easy method to do this? I have been
>> looking at the
>> new nat traversal module it looks like it is
>> doable
>> with this
>> (any further input as far as that?). Also is it
>> possible with
>> the classic Nat Helper module? Any input is
>> appreciated, thanks!
>>
>>
>> I think the nat_traversal module can not help you in
>> this case, nor
>> nathelper.
>>
>> One possibility would be to spoof at P1 the IP
>> address
>> of P2 -
>> nevertheless this would cause the reply sent back to
>> P2, but the
>> transaction is created in P1. (and you need to hack
>> Kamailio for IP
>> spoofing).
>>
>> Another easy solution would be: In P1 set a certain
>> branch-flag when
>> the client registers, e.g. bflag 1. In P2 set a
>> certain
>> branch-flag
>> when the client registers, e.g. bflag 2.
>>
>> Now, if a user is called, just make a lookup() and
>> t_relay. Further
>> in the branch_route check if:
>> in P1: isbflagset(2) --> forward to P2
>> in P2: isbflagset(1) --> forward to P1
>>
>> klaus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.kamailio.org
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org>
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org>>
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org>
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org
>> <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org>>>
>>
>>
>> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>> http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.kamailio.org <mailto:Users at lists.kamailio.org>
>> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>> http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>> -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>> http://www.asipto.com/
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://www.asipto.com/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20090429/02623802/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Users
mailing list