Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Emmanuel BUU]

Le 2018-02-03 à 08:10, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :
Upon inspection I think you should set enable_double_rr to value '2'. 
It will always add two record route headers. It is a small line in 
documentation.

Interesting.


I don't see how loose_route can be fixed if you only have 1 route 
header. It won't be compatible with multi homed kamailio.
Yes, we have posted an issue and proposed a patch that should be 
compatible with mhomed=1.


https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1428



Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan



Emmanuel



___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users


___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Timmo Verlaan]

Upon inspection I think you should set enable_double_rr to value '2'. It
will always add two record route headers. It is a small line in
documentation.

I don't see how loose_route can be fixed if you only have 1 route header.
It won't be compatible with multi homed kamailio.

Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan

On 3 Feb 2018 00:15, "Emmanuel BUU"  wrote:


Le 2018-02-02 à 23:12, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :

Hi Emmanuel,

I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a
different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd say
that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if both
route headers are equal.

I don't think this is the correct behavior to add to identical SIP URI in
the route set.


As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some
kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix loose
route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).

We will post a ticket and submit a patch to fix loose_route() instead.
Don't want to add some strange cases to out script which is already quite
complex.


Regards,
Timmo

Emmanuel


On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU"  wrote:

Hi Timmo,

We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the proxy
when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This is
because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 5066 on
the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, this seems
logical.
Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on the
same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an exemple
of Route: header?

Emmanuel BUU
IVèS


Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :

Hi Thomas,

We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct
egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a
modparam: enable_double_rr.
Would this be a solution for you?

Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan

On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello"  wrote:

> Thank you for you answer.
>
> We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change
> anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this
> case.
>
> In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket
> selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR
> module and the loose_route() function.
> In the  after_loose() function in loose.c, the  function
> set_force_socket()  is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the
> route set of the ACK message
>
> But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route
> for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a
> trace:
>
> "No next URI found"
>
> and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is
> called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our
> configuration instead.
>
> At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that
> it is a software bug  and that after_loose() should force the send_socket
> even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the
> 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this
> behavior.
>
> Are we missing something?
>
> Thank you for you time,
> Thomas
>
> Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
> Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value
> in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
>
>
> Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
>  :
>
>
> Hello,
>
> i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
>
> This configuration is multi-homed, we have* two network* interfaces, one
> on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to
> listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users
> Alice and Bob on the  public Internet using port 5066.  Both users are
> behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
>
> We have set the parameter mhomed=1
>
> When Alice calls Bob, we have
>
> Alice Proxy   Bob
>
> src=5063  dst=5066
> INVITE -->
>
> src=5066
> --  INVITE ---> dst=5060
>
> dst=5066
> <--- 200 OK -- src=5060
>
>
> dst=5063
> <--- 200 OK - src=5066
>
> src=5063  dst=5066
>  ACK --->
>
> *src=5060  (blocked by NAT)*
> --  ACK-xdst=5060
>
>
>
> The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT
> rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
>
> For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established.
> Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
>
> Also, if we set nhomed=

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Emmanuel BUU]

Le 2018-02-02 à 23:12, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :

Hi Emmanuel,

I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a 
different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd 
say that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if 
both route headers are equal.
I don't think this is the correct behavior to add to identical SIP URI 
in the route set.


As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some 
kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix 
loose route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).
We will post a ticket and submit a patch to fix loose_route() instead. 
Don't want to add some strange cases to out script which is already 
quite complex.


Regards,
Timmo

Emmanuel


On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU" > wrote:


Hi Timmo,

We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by
the proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single
route. This is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the
alternate port 5066 on the same interfacec and using the same
protocol (UDP). To us, this seems logical.

Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are
on the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you
send us an exemple of Route: header?

Emmanuel BUU
IVèS


Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :

Hi Thomas,

We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so
the correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by
setting a modparam: enable_double_rr.
Would this be a solution for you?

Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan

On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" mailto:thomas.carve...@ives.fr>> wrote:

Thank you for you answer.

We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt
change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has
no influence in this case.

In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the
socket selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be
located in the RR module and the loose_route() function.

In the  after_loose() function in loose.c, the  function
set_force_socket()  is called only if a DOUBLE route is
mentioned in the route set of the ACK message

But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only
ONE route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is
OK). In this case, we get a trace:

"No next URI found"

and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when
t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first
socket defined in our configuration instead.

At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We
believe that it is a software bug  and that after_loose()
should force the send_socket even though we have only one
route in the route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and
there is no change in this module that would alter this behavior.

Are we missing something?

Thank you for you time,

Thomas

Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :

Hi

Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by
what the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the
message 200 Ok


Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
 :


Hello,

i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.

This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network*
interfaces, one on a private network and on the public
Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060
and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice
and Bob on the public Internet using port 5066.  Both
users are behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange
on the proxy server.

We have set the parameter mhomed=1

When Alice calls Bob, we have

Alice   Proxy   Bob

src=5063dst=5066
INVITE -->

 src=5066
 --  INVITE ---> dst=5060

 dst=5066
 <--- 200 OK -- src=5060


dst=5063
<--- 200 OK - src=5066

src=5063dst=5066
 ACK --->

 *src=5060 (blocked by NAT)*
 --  ACK-xdst=5060


The ACK packet gets relayed

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Timmo Verlaan]

Hi Emmanuel,

I now understand what you're dealing with. No, we always go out over a
different interface so a double header is always present. Although I'd say
that enable_double_rr should always add two route headers. Even if both
route headers are equal.

As a workaround you could add the route headers manually using some
kamailio scripting. We did this for a while until we were able to fix loose
route to cover our usecase (it ignored default port).

Regards,
Timmo

On 2 Feb 2018 16:50, "Emmanuel BUU"  wrote:

Hi Timmo,

We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the proxy
when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This is
because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 5066 on
the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, this seems
logical.
Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on the
same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an exemple
of Route: header?

Emmanuel BUU
IVèS


Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :

Hi Thomas,

We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct
egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a
modparam: enable_double_rr.
Would this be a solution for you?

Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan

On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello"  wrote:

> Thank you for you answer.
>
> We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change
> anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this
> case.
>
> In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket
> selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR
> module and the loose_route() function.
> In the  after_loose() function in loose.c, the  function
> set_force_socket()  is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the
> route set of the ACK message
>
> But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route
> for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a
> trace:
>
> "No next URI found"
>
> and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is
> called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our
> configuration instead.
>
> At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that
> it is a software bug  and that after_loose() should force the send_socket
> even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the
> 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this
> behavior.
>
> Are we missing something?
>
> Thank you for you time,
> Thomas
>
> Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
> Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value
> in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
>
>
> Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
>  :
>
>
> Hello,
>
> i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
>
> This configuration is multi-homed, we have* two network* interfaces, one
> on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to
> listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users
> Alice and Bob on the  public Internet using port 5066.  Both users are
> behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
>
> We have set the parameter mhomed=1
>
> When Alice calls Bob, we have
>
> Alice Proxy   Bob
>
> src=5063  dst=5066
> INVITE -->
>
> src=5066
> --  INVITE ---> dst=5060
>
> dst=5066
> <--- 200 OK -- src=5060
>
>
> dst=5063
> <--- 200 OK - src=5066
>
> src=5063  dst=5066
>  ACK --->
>
> *src=5060  (blocked by NAT)*
> --  ACK-xdst=5060
>
>
>
> The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT
> rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
>
> For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established.
> Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
>
> Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is
> handled correctly.
> I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
>
> I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of
> this selection ?
>
>
> *How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user
> is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066? *
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
>
> Best
> Evgeniy
>
>
>
> 

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Emmanuel BUU]

Hi Timmo,

We do have *enable_double_rr* set to 1 but the route set added by the 
proxy when record_route() on the INVITE consists in a single route. This 
is because Alice and Bob are BOTH registered with the alternate port 
5066 on the same interfacec and using the same protocol (UDP). To us, 
this seems logical.


Do you have a double route in your case even though both party are on 
the same port, same interface and both UDP? If so, could you send us an 
exemple of Route: header?


Emmanuel BUU
IVèS

Le 2018-02-02 à 14:18, Timmo Verlaan a écrit :

Hi Thomas,

We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the 
correct egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a 
modparam: enable_double_rr.

Would this be a solution for you?

Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan

On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello" > wrote:


Thank you for you answer.

We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt
change anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no
influence in this case.

In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket
selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in
the RR module and the loose_route() function.

In the  after_loose() function in loose.c, the  function
set_force_socket()  is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned
in the route set of the ACK message

But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE
route for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this
case, we get a trace:

"No next URI found"

and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when
t_relay() is called, the forward_request() selects the first
socket defined in our configuration instead.

At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We
believe that it is a software bug  and that after_loose() should
force the send_socket even though we have only one route in the
route set. We also checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in
this module that would alter this behavior.

Are we missing something?

Thank you for you time,

Thomas

Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :

Hi

Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what
the value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok


Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
 :


Hello,

i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.

This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network*
interfaces, one on a private network and on the public
Internet. Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and
5066 on both interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob
on the  public Internet using port 5066.  Both users are
behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.

We have set the parameter mhomed=1

When Alice calls Bob, we have

Alice   Proxy   Bob

src=5063dst=5066
INVITE -->

 src=5066
 --  INVITE ---> dst=5060

 dst=5066
 <--- 200 OK -- src=5060


dst=5063
<--- 200 OK - src=5066

src=5063dst=5066
 ACK --->

 *src=5060 (blocked by NAT)*
 --  ACK-xdst=5060


The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then
the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.

For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly
established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as
local port?

Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that
multi homed is handled correctly.

I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?

I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is
the logic of this selection ?

/*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src
port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066?*
/

Thank you for your time.

Thomas



___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org 
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users




Best
Evgeniy



___
Kamailio (SER) - User

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Timmo Verlaan]

Hi Thomas,

We have a similar situation but we use double route headers so the correct
egress socket is chosen. You can enable this by setting a
modparam: enable_double_rr.
Would this be a solution for you?

Kind regards,
Timmo Verlaan

On 2 Feb 2018 13:57, "Thomas Carvello"  wrote:

> Thank you for you answer.
>
> We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change
> anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in this
> case.
>
> In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket
> selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR
> module and the loose_route() function.
> In the  after_loose() function in loose.c, the  function
> set_force_socket()  is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the
> route set of the ACK message
>
> But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route
> for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we get a
> trace:
>
> "No next URI found"
>
> and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is
> called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our
> configuration instead.
>
> At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe that
> it is a software bug  and that after_loose() should force the send_socket
> even though we have only one route in the route set. We also checked the
> 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would alter this
> behavior.
>
> Are we missing something?
>
> Thank you for you time,
> Thomas
>
> Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
> Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value
> in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok
>
>
> Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
>  :
>
>
> Hello,
>
> i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
>
> This configuration is multi-homed, we have* two network* interfaces, one
> on a private network and on the public Internet. Kamailio is configured to
> listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both interfaces. We register two users
> Alice and Bob on the  public Internet using port 5066.  Both users are
> behind a NAT and we capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
>
> We have set the parameter mhomed=1
>
> When Alice calls Bob, we have
>
> Alice Proxy   Bob
>
> src=5063  dst=5066
> INVITE -->
>
> src=5066
> --  INVITE ---> dst=5060
>
> dst=5066
> <--- 200 OK -- src=5060
>
>
> dst=5063
> <--- 200 OK - src=5066
>
> src=5063  dst=5066
>  ACK --->
>
> *src=5060  (blocked by NAT)*
> --  ACK-xdst=5060
>
>
>
> The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the NAT
> rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
>
> For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly established.
> Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
>
> Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi homed is
> handled correctly.
> I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?
>
> I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the logic of
> this selection ?
>
>
> *How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if the user
> is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066? *
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
>
> Best
> Evgeniy
>
>
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Thomas Carvello]

Thank you for you answer.

We have tried to change the local port for Bob, but it doesnt change 
anything. And the contact value in 200 OK message has no influence in 
this case.


In fact, we have made a further investigation regarding the socket 
selection *and read the code. *The issue seems to be located in the RR 
module and the loose_route() function.


In the  after_loose() function in loose.c, the  function 
set_force_socket()  is called only if a DOUBLE route is mentioned in the 
route set of the ACK message


But when both users are using 5066 as proxy port, we get only ONE route 
for the proxy in the route set (and to us it is OK). In this case, we 
get a trace:


"No next URI found"

and the code exits. Later in the message processing, when t_relay() is 
called, the forward_request() selects the first socket defined in our 
configuration instead.


At this point, we can't presume what socket we be select. We believe 
that it is a software bug  and that after_loose() should force the 
send_socket even though we have only one route in the route set. We also 
checked the 5.1 code and there is no change in this module that would 
alter this behavior.


Are we missing something?

Thank you for you time,

Thomas

Le 26/01/2018 à 15:43, Евгений Голей a écrit :

Hi

Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the 
value in Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok



Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello
:


Hello,

i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.

This configuration is multi-homed, we have*two network*
interfaces, one on a private network and on the public Internet.
Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both
interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the  public
Internet using port 5066.  Both users are behind a NAT and we
capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.

We have set the parameter mhomed=1

When Alice calls Bob, we have

Alice   Proxy   Bob

src=5063dst=5066
INVITE -->

 src=5066
 --  INVITE ---> dst=5060

 dst=5066
 <--- 200 OK -- src=5060


dst=5063
<--- 200 OK - src=5066

src=5063dst=5066
 ACK --->

 *src=5060 (blocked by NAT)*
 --  ACK-xdst=5060


The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then the
NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.

For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly
established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as local
port?

Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that multi
homed is handled correctly.

I was wondering if you have encounter this issue before?

I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is the
logic of this selection ?

/*How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src port if
the user is registered using port 5066 instead of 5066?*
/

Thank you for your time.

Thomas



___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org 
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users



Best
Evgeniy


___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Issue with Socket selection on Forwarding ACK message

[Евгений Голей]

Hi

Could it be because of Bob happend to use 5060 as local port?
Yes, the port and the address in the ACK are indicated by what the value in 
Contact was in reply 200 Ok. Look at the message 200 Ok


>Четверг, 25 января 2018, 13:00 +03:00 от Thomas Carvello 
>:
>
>
>Hello,
>i have an issue with my Kamailio 4.1.9 configuration.
>This configuration is multi-homed, we have two network interfaces, one on a 
>private network and on the public Internet.
>Kamailio is configured to listen on port 5060 and 5066 on both
>interfaces. We register two users Alice and Bob on the  public
>Internet using port 5066.  Both users are behind a NAT and we
>capture the SIP exchange on the proxy server.
>We have set the parameter mhomed=1
>When Alice calls Bob, we have 
>Alice  Proxy   Bob
>src=5063   dst=5066
>INVITE -->
>
>src=5066
>--  INVITE ---> dst=5060
>
>dst=5066  
><--- 200 OK -- src=5060
>
>
>dst=5063 
><--- 200 OK - src=5066
>
>src=5063   dst=5066
> ACK --->
>
>src=5060  (blocked by NAT)
>--  ACK-xdst=5060
>
>
>
>The ACK packet gets relayed with the wrong source port. Then
>the NAT rejects the packet and the call cannot be established.
>For some reason, when Bob calls Alice, the call is correctly
>established. Could it be because Bob happend to use 5060 as
>local port?
>Also, if we set nhomed=0 it works BUT we are not sure that
>multi homed is handled correctly. I was wondering if you have 
> encounter this issue before?
>I have investigated the code for selection socket and what is
>the logic of this selection ?
>How does kamailo knows that it should choose 5066 as src
>port if the user is registered using port 5066 instead of
>5066?
>Thank you for your time.
>Thomas
>
>
>___
>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users


Best 
Evgeniy
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users