Sure thing :) and your welcome.
 

    On Friday, April 6, 2018, 1:48:13 PM GMT+5:30, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu 
<bog...@opensips.org> wrote:  
 
  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> 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
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