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" <emmanuel....@ives.fr> 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" <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 > <thomas.carve...@ives.fr> <thomas.carve...@ives.fr>: > > > 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-----x dst=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 > email@example.com > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > > > Best > Evgeniy > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsremail@example.com://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List email@example.com https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users