[SR-Users] Wrong Record-Route and Via header fields when TCP is used

Wed Jul 17 17:27:11 CEST 2019

Dear Daniel,
Did you have a chance to check the traces?

Best regards,
Leonid

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM Leonid Fainshtein <
leonid.fainshtein at xorcom.com> wrote:

> Hello Daniel,
> The requested traces can be downloaded by using the link below:
>
> http://updates.xorcom.com/~xorcom/kam-tcp-problem.tar.gz
>
> I don't use the force send socket option and doesn't route out via
> dispatcher in this particular call flow.
> I found that the problem happens only when the "listen" parameters are
> defined in the Kamailio configuration.
> Thus the server where I made the tests have the following IPs configured:
>
> 2: ens32: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel
> state UP group default qlen 1000
>    link/ether 00:0c:29:ad:af:e9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>    inet 192.168.9.103/20 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic ens32
> 3: lxdbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue
> state UP group default qlen 1000
>    link/ether fe:d8:26:e7:21:dc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>    inet 10.28.80.1/24 scope global lxdbr0
>
> The request is accepted on 10.28.80.1 and forwarded from 192.168.9.103
>
> If I define:
> listen=udp:10.28.80.1:5060
> listen=tcp:10.28.80.1:5060
> listen=udp:192.168.9.103:5060
> listen=tcp:192.168.9.103:5060
>
> Then the problem occurs. Ref. files syslog-bad.log and bad.cap.
> If I remove all of the 'listen' parameters then the forwarded INVITE
> request is built properly. Ref. files syslog-good.log and good.cap
>
> Best regards,
> Leonid Fainshtein
> Xorcom Ltd
>
> Best regards,
> Leonid Fainshtein
> Xorcom Ltd
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > set debug = 3 in kamailio cfg and reproduce this case. Send here all the
> > log messages printed by kamailio from the moment it receives the request
> > till it sends it out.
> >
> > Some further questions:
> >
> >   - do you use any force send socket option?
> >   - do you route out via dispatcher? If yes, is the socket attribute set?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel
> >
> > On 08.07.19 21:23, Leonid Fainshtein wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > The source address is correct: 192.168.0.31. I see it in tcpdump and
> > > also in sngrep.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Leonid
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> > > <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> when you look at the network traffic 9e.g., with ngrep, sngrep, ...)
> > >> what is shown as source address for outbound leg?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Daniel
> > >>
> > >> On 08.07.19 19:21, Leonid Fainshtein wrote:
> > >>> I just found Daniel's response to a similar question (ref.:
> > >>>
> https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2019-February/104853.html):
> > >>>
> > >>> "check the routing rules/table of the operating systems, there
> should be
> > >>> some differences between the two servers.
> > >>> If you mhomed=1 and an unexpected interface is used for routing out
> the
> > >>> traffic, it means that the operating system has internal routing
> rules that
> > >>> allow going from that interface to the target address."
> > >>>
> > >>> Don't see anything suspicious in my server routing table:
> > >>>
> > >>> default via 192.168.0.1 dev eno1 proto static
> > >>> 10.159.65.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.159.65.1
> > >>> 172.200.4.0/24 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 172.200.4.1
> > >>> 192.168.0.0/20 dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.31
> > >>>
> > >>> The request is received on the lxdbr0 interface (10.159.65.1) and
> sent
> > >>> out from the eno1 interface (192.168.0.31).
> > >>> I even tried to delete the default route but nothing helped. The
> > >>> request is sent out with 10.159.65.1 in the via and Record-Route
> > >>> fields...
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Leonid
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:20 PM Leonid Fainshtein
> > >>> <leonid.fainshtein at xorcom.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>> Kamailio server has two legs that are connected to different
> networks.
> > >>>> I'm using Kamailio v.5.2.3 and the "enable_double_rr" is implicitly
> set to "1".
> > >>>> The leg "A" IP address is 10.159.65.1
> > >>>> The leg "B" IP address is 192.168.0.31
> > >>>> The call is initiated from 10.159.65.18
> > >>>>
> > >>>> According to the "rr" module documentation, function record_route()
> > >>>> should insert two "Record_Route" header fields when a request is
> > >>>> accepted on one leg is should go out via the second leg. This works
> as
> > >>>> expected in case of UDP protocol:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> INVITE sip:2000 at 192.168.6.106:5460;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.31;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191>
> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;r2=on;lr;did=e2c.a191>
> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> > >>>> 192.168.0.31;branch=z9hG4bKcfa5.d64ecbd87d5315b5993c4ccf16f86537.0
> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.159.65.18:5060
> ;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK3a9e9a4d
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But when the TCP protocol is used then the outbound message looks
> like this:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> INVITE sip:2005 at 192.168.0.178:35058;transport=tcp SIP/2.0
> > >>>> Record-Route: <sip:10.159.65.1;transport=tcp;lr;did=bb6.7dc1>
> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
> > >>>>
> 10.159.65.1;branch=z9hG4bKc85a.14afc3867dd3220826f9b9940f78168f.0;i=3
> > >>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.159.65.18:5060
> ;rport=58616;branch=z9hG4bK1469331f
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There are two problems there:
> > >>>> a) only one Record-Route with leg is inserted
> > >>>> b) the added "Via" header field contains the leg "A" IP address
> > >>>> instead of expected leg "B" IP address (192.168.0.31). In the LAN
> > >>>> trace I see that in reality the message was sent from leg "B".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is it a bug?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best regards,
> > >>>> Leonid Fainshtein
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> > >>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> > >>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
> > >> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> > >>
> > --
> > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
> > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20190717/ced7fbc7/attachment.html>