I reread your post, i totally misunderstood. I thought you were ready
to make a concession for now until bria support for redundant, tls
servers fix is committed.

ezuce wants tls to work on redundant systems so we'd have a vested
interest in getting this fixed in 4.6.0, it's only a matter of time
and seems like an easy fix.  Thanks for finding the issue, I don't
think we tested HA and TLS together yet.

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM, darthzejdr <darthze...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes it does, but the problem is i need it to work with domain registration
> and tls. Setting a proxy means i can't use failover, and then i don't
> actualy need 2 servers. Also it doesn't actualy help with comunication since
> if i register bria on 1 server, and another bria on second, i'll still have
> the same tcp problem i'm having here. Atm the only way i can use domain is
> using udp, and that's not really a good solution for me since i really need
> the tls for security.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hubler
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:22 PM
> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] 4.6 Cluster
>
> does bria allow you to set an outbound proxy?  polycom has this.  so
> essentially it will allow you to register
>
>    j...@domain.com
>
> at server
>
>    server1.domain.com
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM, darthzejdr <darthze...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't found a way to insert the path header. Did you manage to
>> think of a way to fix it on your end? Or any other ideas on what i
>> could try? Is there any way to forward calls to server1, so it
>> initializes calls to bria instead of server 2?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Joegen Baclor [mailto:jbac...@ezuce.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:18 AM
>>
>>
>> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
>> Cc: darthzejdr
>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] 4.6 Cluster
>>
>>
>>
>> If you can make Bria insert a Path header in REGISTER, that should
>> solve your issue.  We are discussing a workable solution but there is
>> nothing final yet.
>>
>> On 10/05/2012 02:57 PM, darthzejdr wrote:
>>
>> So, is there anything i can do to fix this? Or does it need to be
>> fixed on a server level? I need to be able to use TLS and clustering,
>> and from what i see here i won't have comunication between my sites if
>> i use anything except UDP.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Joegen Baclor [mailto:jbac...@ezuce.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:39 PM
>> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
>> Cc: darthzejdr
>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] 4.6 Cluster
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally I got the trace I need to provide you with an analysis
>>
>> ./Server1/sipregistrar.log-20121004:"2012-10-03T11:28:33.730099Z":367:
>> INCOMING:INFO:sipx1.callidus.local:SipClientTcp-31:7f1f8acf5700:SipReg
>> istrar:"Read
>> SIP message:
>> ----Local Host:192.168.0.46---- Port: 5060---- ----Remote
>> Host:192.168.0.46---- Port: 39985---- REGISTER
>> sip:192.168.0.46;transport=tcp SIP/2.0\r
>> Route: <sip:rr.sipx1.callidus.local;transport=tcp;lr>\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>> 192.168.0.46;branch=z9hG4bK-XX-0001JZfBODnCeQ5GLt01pwXDbw\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>> 192.168.0.66:36070;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-2110ba28537b1953-1---d8754z-;
>> rport=60123\r
>> Max-Forwards: 20\r
>> Contact:
>> <sip:201@192.168.0.66:55243;rinstance=4782eca9743a1724;transport=TCP;x
>> -sipX-nonat>\r
>> To: \"201\"<sip:201@192.168.0.46>\r
>> From: \"201\"<sip:201@192.168.0.46>;tag=1775733c\r
>> Call-Id: NTQwOTE2OWIwYmQyN2JmNDdjN2FmZDhkNzE1YjkyZjk.\r
>> Cseq: 1 REGISTER\r
>> Expires: 3600\r
>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, MESSAGE,
>> SUBSCRIBE, INFO\r
>> User-Agent: Bria release 2.2 stamp 45414\r
>> Content-Length: 0\r
>> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:28:33 GMT\r
>> X-Sipx-Spiral: true\r
>> \r
>> ====================END====================
>>
>>
>>
>> This is the register sent by Bria to your master server.    You will see
>> that the contact is towards an ephemeral port
>> (201@192.168.0.66:55243).  The problem with TCP is it is connection
>> oriented.  And if a phone registers TCP, it normally intends to
>> receive incoming request via the same connection.  Thus, since your
>> Bria is registered to the master server, calls from secondary will not
>> be able to connect to port 55243 since it is already in use to connect
>> to the master.  The INVITE from secondary towards the Bria is timed out.
> See Sip  messages below.
>>
>>
>>
>> ./Server2/sipXproxy.log-20121004:"2012-10-03T06:49:21.751101Z":4231:OU
>> TGOING:INFO:sipx2.callidus.local:SipUserAgent-0:7f03249c1700:SipXProxy
>> :"SipUserAgent::sendTcp
>> TCP SIP User Agent sent message:
>> ----Local Host:192.168.0.47---- Port: -1---- ----Remote
>> Host:192.168.0.66---- Port: 55243---- INVITE
>> sip:201@192.168.0.66:55243;transport=TCP;rinstance=77652402758671b3;x-
>> sipX-nonat
>> SIP/2.0\r
>> Record-Route:
>> <sip:192.168.0.47:5060;lr;sipXecs-CallDest=INT;sipXecs-rs=%2Aauth%7E.%
>> 2Afrom%7EY2QwOWY3M2M%60%2195d58d323e0b74721490b5960f9aacdb>\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>> 192.168.0.47;branch=z9hG4bK-XX-007aGHD2233NJ37`o7R9ub11Sg\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> 192.168.0.47;branch=z9hG4bK-XX-0073ek6_NOw9GHGEKiPxB1mC7Q~UgrmM4eHLTVE
>> MlRgE`UzIA\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>> 192.168.0.55:49440;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-5f3c597876149a55-1---d8754z-;
>> rport=1889\r
>> Max-Forwards: 18\r
>> Contact: <sip:200@192.168.0.55:1889;transport=TCP;x-sipX-nonat>\r
>> To: <sip:201@192.168.0.47>\r
>> From: \"200\"<sip:200@192.168.0.47>;tag=cd09f73c\r
>> Call-Id: NTkwMmY1MTExNWQxZmI0OTVkNDI0ZjFlNzE4ZTUyYTM.\r
>> Cseq: 2 INVITE\r
>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, MESSAGE,
>> SUBSCRIBE, INFO\r
>> Content-Type: application/sdp\r
>> Proxy-Authorization: Digest
>> username=\"200\",realm=\"callidus.local\",nonce=\"0b61a318caca69024f68
>> 03b99fcd402a506bdff0\",uri=\"sip:201@192.168.0.47;transport=tcp\",resp
>> onse=\"7717633a520ccd47215721a17f276e8e\",cnonce=\"aad9569089334a96274
>> f1a7839d054d7\",nc=00000001,qop=auth,algorithm=MD5\r
>> User-Agent: Bria release 2.2 stamp 45414\r
>> Content-Length: 480\r
>> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:49:20 GMT\r
>> Expires: 20\r
>> \r
>> v=0\r
>> o=- 2 2 IN IP4 192.168.0.55\r
>> s=CounterPath Bria\r
>> c=IN IP4 192.168.0.55\r
>> t=0 0\r
>> m=audio 2592 RTP/AVP 107 119 100 106 0 98 8 18 101\r
>> a=alt:1 1 : 8oh9Hd/J 65epFIay 192.168.0.55 2592\r
>> a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r
>> a=fmtp:101 0-15\r
>> a=rtpmap:107 BV32/16000\r
>> a=rtpmap:119 BV32-FEC/16000\r
>> a=rtpmap:100 SPEEX/16000\r
>> a=rtpmap:106 SPEEX-FEC/16000\r
>> a=rtpmap:98 iLBC/8000\r
>> a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000\r
>> a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000\r
>> a=sendrecv\r
>> a=x-rtp-session-id:E06731ED3F024F80A7328BCDEB36DFDB\r
>> --------------------END--------------------
>> "
>> ./Server2/sipXproxy.log-20121004:"2012-10-03T06:49:22.532219Z":4237:OU
>> TGOING:INFO:sipx2.callidus.local:SipUserAgent-0:7f03249c1700:SipXProxy
>> :"SipUserAgent::sendUdp
>> UDP SIP User Agent sent message:
>> ----Local Host:192.168.0.47---- Port: 5060---- ----Remote
>> Host:192.168.0.47---- Port: 5060----
>> SIP/2.0 408 Request timeout\r
>> From: \"200\"<sip:200@192.168.0.47>;tag=cd09f73c\r
>> To: <sip:201@192.168.0.47>;tag=sps0im\r
>> Call-Id: NTkwMmY1MTExNWQxZmI0OTVkNDI0ZjFlNzE4ZTUyYTM.\r
>> Cseq: 2 INVITE\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> 192.168.0.47;branch=z9hG4bK-XX-006fPVfBK8gIftTBiiPIQE9c4A~UgrmM4eHLTVE
>> MlRgE`UzIA\r
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>> 192.168.0.55:49440;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-5f3c597876149a55-1---d8754z-;
>> rport=1889\r
>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.47:5060;lr>\r
>> Server: sipXecs/4.6.0 sipXecs/sipXproxy (Linux)\r
>> Content-Length: 0\r
>> \r
>> --------------------END--------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/04/2012 10:16 PM, darthzejdr wrote:
>>
>> Server1:
>>
>> [root@sipx1 ~]# iptables -L -n
>>
>> Chain INPUT (policy DROP)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  192.168.0.46         0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  192.168.0.47         0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:80
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:443
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:53
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:21
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:20
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp
>>
>> dpts:50000:50050 state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp
>>
>> dpts:30000:31000 state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:5060
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:5061
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:5060
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:5080
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:5081
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:22
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:69
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           state
>>
>> RELATED,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     icmp --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
>>
>>
>>
>> Chain FORWARD (policy DROP)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>>
>>
>> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>>
>>
>> Chain syn-flood (0 references)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Server2:
>>
>> [root@sipx2 ~]# iptables -L -n
>>
>> Chain INPUT (policy DROP)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  192.168.0.46         0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  192.168.0.47         0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:53
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp
>>
>> dpts:30000:31000 state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:5060
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:5061
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     udp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:5060
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:22
>>
>> state NEW,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           state
>>
>> RELATED,ESTABLISHED
>>
>> ACCEPT     icmp --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> ACCEPT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
>>
>>
>>
>> Chain FORWARD (policy DROP)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>>
>>
>> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>>
>>
>> Chain syn-flood (0 references)
>>
>> target     prot opt source               destination
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
>>
>> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of George
>> Niculae
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:27 PM
>>
>> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
>>
>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] 4.6 Cluster
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM, darthzejdr <darthze...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, we've discovered the problem(and a partial solution). It works as
>>
>> it should only if we're both using udp.
>>
>>
>>
>> 200(Server2, TCP) -> 201(Server1, TCP) doesn't work 201(Server1, TCP)
>>
>> -> 200(Server2, TCP) doesn't work
>>
>>
>>
>> 200(Server2, UDP) -> 201(Server1, TCP) works 201(Server1, TCP) ->
>>
>> 200(Server2, UDP) doesn't work
>>
>>
>>
>> 200(Server2, TCP) -> 201(Server1, UDP) doesn't work 201(Server1, UDP)
>>
>> -> 200(Server2, TCP) works
>>
>>
>>
>> 200(Server2, UDP) -> 201(Server1, UDP) works 201(Server1, UDP) ->
>>
>> 200(Server2, UDP) works
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We're looking at the logs, can you post output for iptables -L -n from
>> both
>>
>> nodes meanwhile?
>>
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> sipx-users mailing list
>>
>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
>>
>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> sipx-users mailing list
>>
>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
>>
>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> sipx-users mailing list
>>
>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
>>
>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipx-users mailing list
>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

Reply via email to