Hello again, Indeed this issue does not manifest at all. I'm awfully sorry for the false alarm, and on release day no less!
The problem was there was a lingering DNAT rule in iptables, which would translate port 5066 to port 5060. The deployment script injected this as it was carried over from our legacy platform. Of course, I kept banging my head against the wall here because sngrep wouldn't show the DNAT's effect as it captures traffic from the NIC directly: it would show a REGISTER arriving on 5066, but the dport was masqueraded before being handed over to kamailio. Similarly for the outgoing INVITE. NAT is wrong in so many ways... :-) BR, George On 11 December 2017 at 18:17, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I did a quick test and all looks fine, ports are set in via and > record-route, in my config I have: > > record_route(); > > $fs="udp:127.0.0.1:5080"; > $du = "sip:127.0.0.1:9"; > t_relay(); > exit; > > Then sending an OPTIONS resulted in the trace shown below. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > U 2017/12/11 17:14:47.108430 127.0.0.1:56729 -> 127.0.0.1:5060 > OPTIONS sip:test@127.0.0.1 SIP/2.0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.178.84:62516;branch=z9hG4bK.3aaddf68;rport;alias. > From: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516;tag=16d1c24. > To: sip:test@127.0.0.1. > Call-ID: 23927844@192.168.178.84. > CSeq: 1 OPTIONS. > Contact: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516. > Content-Length: 0. > Max-Forwards: 70. > User-Agent: sipsak 0.9.7pre. > Accept: text/plain. > . > > > U 2017/12/11 17:14:51.010251 127.0.0.1:5080 -> 127.0.0.1:9 > OPTIONS sip:test@127.0.0.1 SIP/2.0. > Record-Route: <sip:127.0.0.1:5080;r2=on;lr>. > Record-Route: <sip:127.0.0.1;r2=on;lr>. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:5080;branch=z9hG4bK61bd. > b2882fea15c488761489f8ef588efbe1.0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.178.84:62516;received=127.0.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK. > 3aaddf68;rport=56729;alias. > From: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516;tag=16d1c24. > To: sip:test@127.0.0.1. > Call-ID: 23927844@192.168.178.84. > CSeq: 1 OPTIONS. > Contact: sip:sipsak@192.168.178.84:62516. > Content-Length: 0. > Max-Forwards: 69. > User-Agent: sipsak 0.9.7pre. > Accept: text/plain. > . > > On 11.12.17 16:37, George Diamantopoulos wrote: > > Hello all, > > I have the following issue in my configuration, tested with 5.2.0-rc1 so > far: > > At some point, I set the $fs pseudovariable to force a request to be > relayed through a specific socket. Although this is honoured by kamailio > (i.e. the request does indeed leave the kamailio host from the respective > socket), the port number is not added to the Via and RR headers. As a > result, all replies to the request, as well as all subsequent requests from > the other SIP UA are relayed to the default port, 5060. Here's an example: > > SIP UAC to kamailio: > INVITE 192.168.1.1:5060 ---> 192.168.1.254:5060 > Kamailio to UAS ($fs is set): > INVITE 2.2.2.2:5066 ---> 3.3.3.3:5060 > Topmost Via in request relayed by kamailio is: > SIP/2.0/UDP 2.2.2.2;branch=aaaaaaaaaaaaaa <- port 5066 is not added > Topmost RR in request relayed by kamailio is: > <sip:2.2.2.2;r2=on;lr;did=bbbbbbb;nat=yes> <- port 5066 is not added > RESULT: Reply from UAS is sent to 2.2.2.2:5060 > > Is this behaviour valid? Am I missing anything? Kamailio is configured to > listen on both sockets on IP 2.2.2.2, namely: a) udp:2.2.2.2:5060 and b) > 2.2.2.2:5066. Thanks. > > BR, > George > > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing > Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierlawww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com > Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com > >
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users