Sorry to bump this, but it would be very useful if I knew whether there's any point in pursuing this or not. Any hints?
On 21 September 2017 at 14:06, George Diamantopoulos <georged...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I have a use case where I need to have kamailio bind to a VRF device. The > configuration in question is similar to the example below, where eth1 is a > slave to the VRF-lite device: > > +----------+ +-------------------+ > | eth0 | | vrf-green | > | 1.1.1.1 | | 127.0.0.1 | > +----------+ +-------------------+ > | > +----------+ > | eth1 | > | 2.2.2.2 | > +----------+ > > Both the main routing table and "vrf-green" routing table have a default > route. > > What I need to be able to do is have kamailio bind to both interfaces: > > listen=eth0:5060 > listen=vrf-green:5060 > > And additionally be able to use force_send_socket to select an interface, > for example: > > force_send_socket(udp:2.2.2.2:5060); > > However, I can't get this to work. The above configuration fails because > there is no listen directive for 2.2.2.2. Also, kamailio doesn't process > packets received on the VRF with the above listen directives, it behaves as > if it doesn't listen on 2.2.2.2 indeed. > > In addition using either of the below: > > listen=udp:2.2.2.2:5060 > or > listen=eth1:5060 > > fails with an error upon starting kamailio. > > According to the kernel documentation: > > Applications that are to work within a VRF need to bind their socket to the > VRF device: > > setsockopt(sd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE, dev, strlen(dev)+1); > > or to specify the output device using cmsg and IP_PKTINFO. > > The question is, is VRF useable with kamailio right now? Or is development > needed? Thanks! > > BR, > > George > >
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
