[SR-Users] Send socket and sequential requests

Hello,

Post by Alex Balashov
Hi,
My proxy is bound to a.b.c.d:5060 and secondarily to e.f.g.h:5060.
Most traffic comes into a.b.c.d:5060 and is relayed out that
interface. Some initial INVITEs are routed out of e.f.g.h:5060, forced
via $fs. The problem is that the Record-Route header still reflects
a.b.c.d:5060 and that sequential messages from both ends end up
entering and exiting a.b.c.d:5060. Many endpoints don't like that; for
instance, e2e ACKs from the caller that come from a.b.c.d:5060 while
the initial INVITE came from e.f.g.h:5060 can be a problem in that
they are not matched by some UASs.
What is the best way to approach this? Is this something covered by
Kamailio's 'mhomed' core param?

if you force a different outbound socket than inbound, then the
record_route() should add two headers -- doesn't happen like that? If
yes, can you provide a trace?

Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?

Cheers,
Daniel

--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

2014-08-13 15:28:05 UTC

Post by Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?

Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?

Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?

Daniel

Alex Balashov

2014-08-14 10:14:25 UTC

Post by Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?

Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?

Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?

No, it is not.

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

2014-08-14 10:41:31 UTC

Post by Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?

Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?

Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?

No, it is not.

Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?

Cheers,
Daniel

Alex Balashov

2014-08-14 10:47:49 UTC

Post by Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?

Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?

Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?

No, it is not.

Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?

Sure thing. I sent it to you privately to avoid masking IP addresses.

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

2014-08-14 11:13:36 UTC

Post by Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network interface?

Yes; it's eth0 and eth0:1. Is that a factor?

Could be. Is record_route() adding two headers?

No, it is not.

Can you send the ngrep to see how it appears on the network?

Sure thing. I sent it to you privately to avoid masking IP addresses.

Just double checking -- you haven't disable the double rr via module, isn't?

Do you have explicit listen= or it is left to listen on all interfaces?

Can you give the output of:

kamcmd corex.list_sockets ?

Daniel

Alex Balashov

2014-08-14 11:18:04 UTC

You know what? I do have double RR disabled. I thought about that, and was so sure I wouldn't have turned it off that I didn't even check. But it's disabled. I feel quite stupid. Let me retest and let you know what happens.

Post by Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Btw, is any of these sockets bound to a virtual network

interface?