Thanks Pasan for testing. I just did the backports.

Let me know if there are any issue with the ipv6 tests here.

Best regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
  http://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 2018
  http://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2018Amsterdam

On 04/06/2018 05:54 AM, Pasan Meemaduma wrote:
Hi Bogdan,

We applied your patch and it fixed the issue. Thank you.


On Thursday, April 5, 2018, 6:16:17 PM GMT+5:30, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bog...@opensips.org> wrote:


Hi Pasan,

I found some issues in how IPs are checked for AF_INET6. Could you test this fix:
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/commit/a69f6de764cefab7cb7179b2f439780e74082461

Thanks and regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
   http://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 2018
   http://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2018Amsterdam
On 04/05/2018 01:24 PM, Pasan Meemaduma wrote:
Hi Bogdan,

I just tried, and it still returns true. I have put my debug line below,

Call: Request from NAT IP - From=xxx from_uri=sip:xx...@voip2.exetel.com.au Auth_user=xx Request=xx IP=2400:A240:0:1:6000:0:0:2 Via=2400:a240:0:1:6000::2 ID=545589626



Surprisingly I have another ipv6 address tested and it fails the nat test and behave appropriately. I'll dump both request contents as below,

not working one - nat_uac_test returns true


U 2018/04/05 15:06:20.982169 2400:a240:0:1:6000::2:5060 -> 240x:xx00:1d:f0::1:88:5060
INVITE sip:0x12345...@xx.xx.com.xx SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2400:a240:0:1:6000::2]:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1610101366.
Contact: <sip:0xx0x0x0xx@[2400:A240:0:1:6000:0:0:2]>.

working one - nat_uac_test returns false

U 2018/04/05 15:11:11.480156 2406:3400:0:8:c5c9:bd6:4b95:7a5e:5060 -> 240x:xx00:1d:f0::1:88:5060
INVITE sip:0x12345...@xx.xx.com.xx SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [240x:xx00:0:8:c5c9:bd6:4b95:7a5e]:5060;branch=z9hG4bK566727241.
Contact: <sip:0x80x0xxxx@[240x:xx00:0:8:C5C9:BD6:4B95:7A5E]>.


Only difference I can spot is the second ipv6 address is in fully stretch format and mine in summarize format as below, Not sure if its related.


2400:a240:0:1:6000::2
240x:xx00:0:8:c5c9:bd6:4b95:7a5e

Let me know if you need anything else.
On Thursday, April 5, 2018, 3:37:24 PM GMT+5:30, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bog...@opensips.org> <mailto:bog...@opensips.org> wrote:


Hi Pasan,

19 is 16 + 2 +1 (as tests) :

/1/- Contact header field is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 / RFC6598 addresses.// /2/- the "received" test is used: address in Via is compared against source IP address of signaling//
/16/- test if the source port is different from the port in Via

2 and 16 is checking IP versus IP, so they are not affected by v4 versus v6.

On test 1 I see no checks on v4 or v6 - it simply checks the IP (as raw bytes) against the know ipv4 private classes.

Could you try to remove the test 1 (use 18) and see if the test still returns true ?

Regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
   http://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 2018
   http://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2018Amsterdam
On 04/05/2018 06:58 AM, Pasan Meemaduma via Users wrote:
Hi Guys,

Are nathelper module functions ipv6 safe ? I'm getting true for nat test with following call for an ipv6 address which is a globally unique unicast address.

nat_uac_test("19")




_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users



_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to