I don’t, but I’ll repeat the test with tcpdump active! I’ll report back
shortly
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:50 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> do you have the pcap with the sip traffic for this case?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> On 20.11.19 19:45, Joel Serrano wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I added to the config file:
>
> tcp_no_connect=yes
>
> And with that param, the same test results in a different behavior, but
> still not working:
>
> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} <core>
> [core\/msg_translator.c:161]: check_via_address(): (198.1.54.228,
> 198.1.54.228, 0)"}
> "message":" ERROR: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm
> [..\/..\/core\/forward.h:292]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed"}
> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_fwd.c:1537]:
> t_send_branch(): send to 35.191.9.20:56470 (3) failed"}
> "message":" WARNING: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_fwd.c:1557]:
> t_send_branch(): sending request on branch 0 failed"}
> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_funcs.c:336]:
> t_relay_to(): t_forward_nonack returned error -1 (-477)"}
> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12583750 BYE RVXZVMHKop} tm [t_funcs.c:354]:
> t_relay_to(): -477 error reply generation delayed "}
>
> Although, netstats says the connection is active:
>
> root@sbc-gslb-test-1:~# netstat -putan | grep 56470
> tcp 0 0 10.116.15.237:443 35.191.9.20:56470
> ESTABLISHED 3920/kamailio
> root@sbc-gslb-test-1:~#
>
>
> Anyone?
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 9:26 AM Joel Serrano <j...@textplus.com> wrote:
>
>> Bumping this thread up!
>>
>> I did some more tests trying to narrow down the problem and this is what
>> I found...:
>>
>> On the INVITE, I add the TCP connection information I want to save (for
>> later reuse). Snippets:
>>
>> ...(found this in the misc/examples/pkg/sip-router-oob.cfg, but I haven't
>> noticed any changes to the headers or anything)...
>>
>> # Force response to received connection
>> force_rport();
>> if (proto==TCP || proto == TLS) {
>> force_tcp_alias();
>> xlog("L_NOTICE", "force_tcp_alias() done");
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> ...(I also have this)...
>>
>> if (is_first_hop()) {
>> xlog("L_NOTICE", "Adding LB info to contact - M=$rm ID=$ci\n");
>> add_contact_alias("$tcp(c_si)", "$tcp(c_sp)", "tls");
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> Which effectively makes the contact look like:
>>
>>
>> <sip:linphone@104.175.176.242:50312;alias=35.191.9.21~50705~3;transport=tls>
>>
>> ..180..
>> ..200 OK..
>> ..ACK..
>>
>> Then, callee ends the call (so the BYE comes from callee to caller), when
>> I run handle_ruri_alias() I see in the logs that the everything is handled
>> correctly:
>>
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} nathelper
>> [nathelper.c:1144]: handle_ruri_alias(): setting dst_uri to
>> <sip:35.191.9.21:50705;transport=tls>"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} nathelper
>> [nathelper.c:1166]: handle_ruri_alias(): rewriting r-uri to
>> <sip:linphone@104.175.176.242:50312;transport=tls>"}
>>
>> But then, Kamalio won't reuse the existing TCP connection and tries to
>> create a new one:
>>
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:1328]:
>> t_newtran(): msg (0x7f85883b14c8) id=27\/1974 global id=25\/1974 T
>> start=0xffffffffffffffff"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:497]:
>> t_lookup_request(): start searching: hash=63128, isACK=0"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:455]:
>> matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction matching failed - via branch
>> [z9hG4bK896f.dc04734743b0f0997f39c4fff07c0fbb.0]"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_lookup.c:675]:
>> t_lookup_request(): no transaction found"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} tm [t_hooks.c:336]:
>> run_reqin_callbacks_internal(): trans=0x7f8583b17208, callback type 1, id 0
>> entered"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core>
>> [core\/crypto\/md5utils.c:67]: MD5StringArray(): MD5 calculated:
>> 71c229aff3c0b4f6e9e77c4990b74e5e"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} siputils [checks.c:123]:
>> has_totag(): totag found"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} rr [loose.c:1095]:
>> check_route_param(): route params checking against
>> [;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=tAsjXhyIX;did=7d1.e6a2;nat=yes] (orig:
>> [r2=on;lr=on;ftag=tAsjXhyIX;did=7d1.e6a2;nat=yes])"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} rr [loose.c:1101]:
>> check_route_param(): params are
>> <;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=tAsjXhyIX;did=7d1.e6a2;nat=yes>"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} siputils [checks.c:123]:
>> has_totag(): totag found"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core>
>> [core\/msg_translator.c:161]: check_via_address(): (198.1.54.228,
>> 198.1.54.228, 0)"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core>
>> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening
>> new one"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core>
>> [core\/ip_addr.c:229]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection:
>> 35.191.9.21"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core>
>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1242]: tcpconn_new(): on port 50705, type 3"}
>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 12543376 BYE QQy-qagkcB} <core>
>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1561]: tcpconn_add(): hashes: 337:3545:0, 3"}
>>
>> Am I still missing anything?
>>
>> Is this a bug and I should open a GH issue?
>>
>> Any suggestions/comments/ideas are very welcome!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joel.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:46 AM Joel Serrano <j...@textplus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yuriy,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestion, I've tried tcp_accept_aliases=yes in config
>>> and I added force_tcp_alias() in the request route, but I haven't seen any
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> All the VIA headers look exactly the same, and I still get this in the
>>> logs:
>>>
>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11762916 BYE d2T9-YOxYk} <core>
>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening
>>> new one"}
>>>
>>>
>>> The docs say:
>>>
>>> "force_tcp_alias(port)
>>>
>>> adds a tcp port alias for the current connection (if tcp). Useful if you
>>> want to send all the trafic to port_alias through the same connection this
>>> request came from [it could help for firewall or nat traversal]. With no
>>> parameters adds the port from the message via as the alias. When the
>>> “aliased” connection is closed (e.g. it's idle for too much time), all the
>>> port aliases are removed."
>>>
>>> I tried also using force_tcp_alias(5353) as an example, just to see if I
>>> find "5353" added to any headers, but no luck, it wasn't added anywhere..
>>>
>>>
>>> Any other suggestions? Am I missing something?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Joel.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:53 PM Yuriy Gorlichenko <ovoshl...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have to use
>>>> tcp_accept_aliases=yes
>>>> But this is not enough as this param will be triggered by function
>>>> force_tcp_alias() you need to use in the route for request ( for
>>>> example record_route or subroutes)
>>>> It will add param paramname=<portnum> (I Don't remember specific name)
>>>> to Via header that will be used for all dialog requests belongs one
>>>> being affected
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 00:52 Joel Serrano, <j...@textplus.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm setting up a Kamailio instance behind a TCP load balancer (with
>>>>> proxy protocol and NAT routing: meaning Kam stays in the flow all the
>>>>> time).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've managed to get working almost everything we need for our service,
>>>>> except for one thing, and that is for Kam to use existing connections for
>>>>> subsequent transactions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Following this example:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> EXT & INT represent the external and internal interface of a LB
>>>>> between the UAC and Kamailio, using TLS on both legs and proxy protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Transaction 1: INVITE, 100, 180, 183, 200 OK
>>>>>
>>>>> UAC 1.1.1.1:1111 -> 2.2.2.2:443 (EXT) 3.3.3.3:3333 (INT) ->
>>>>> 7.7.7.7:5060 (Kamailio)
>>>>>
>>>>> Transaction 2: ACK
>>>>>
>>>>> UAC 1.1.1.1:1112 -> 2.2.2.2:443 (EXT) 4.4.4.4:4444 (INT) ->
>>>>> 7.7.7.7:5060 (Kamailio)
>>>>>
>>>>> Transaction 3: BYE
>>>>>
>>>>> Kam 7.7.7.7:5060 -> 3.3.3.3:3333 (INT) 2.2.2.2:443 (EXT) ->
>>>>> 1.1.1.1:1111 UAC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My problem is with Transaction 3. In this case the BYE is originated
>>>>> by the callee, and Kam has to send it to the caller. As the TCP load
>>>>> balancer is between Kam and the UAC, Kam has to send it to the LB so then
>>>>> the LB can forward it back to the UAC. This works well for msgs that
>>>>> belong
>>>>> to the same transaction (INVITE, 100, 180, 183, 200 OK) but it fails when
>>>>> they don't belong to the same transaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to the newly added $tcp(c_si) and $tcp(c_sp) pseudovars, I can
>>>>> save the internal IP:Port of the LB, so I can send stuff later to it, my
>>>>> problem is that Kam doesn't seem to allow this?
>>>>>
>>>>> On the original INVITE, I use the following to save where I have to
>>>>> reach the UAC:
>>>>>
>>>>> add_contact_alias("$tcp(c_si)", "$tcp(c_sp)", "tls");
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, handle_ruri_alias() will take care of setting $du to the correct
>>>>> (internal LB) IP:Port so I can reach the UAC, this works.
>>>>>
>>>>> My problem is that Kamailio doesn't identify that there is a valid
>>>>> existing TLS connection still up (from the INVITE), and tries to create a
>>>>> new one (and this obviously doesn't gives all sorts of problems).
>>>>>
>>>>> So when I run handle_ruri_alias(), and $du is set to 3.3.3.3:3333
>>>>> (from the example above), instead of using the existing connection,
>>>>> Kamailio tries to create a new one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a log statement right before with the result of
>>>>> tcp_conid_state(1) (the connid is 1 for this connection) and the $rc is 1
>>>>> (Connection is OK), but when I tell Kamailio it has to use it I get this
>>>>> in
>>>>> the logs:
>>>>>
>>>>> DEBUG: {1 11726467 BYE gqR1qqNK8B} <core> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]:
>>>>> tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening new one"}
>>>>>
>>>>> And then the problems begin...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have tried playing around with:
>>>>>
>>>>> tcp_reuse_port
>>>>> tcp_connection_match
>>>>>
>>>>> But no luck..!
>>>>>
>>>>> I also thought it could be a problem of the connection being created
>>>>> on one worker, and a different worker handling BYE transaction, so tested
>>>>> with children=1 and tcp_children=1, but still same problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> A more detailed log:
>>>>>
>>>>> In blue my log statement checking for the status of conid "1", in red
>>>>> Kam not being able to find it, although it exists (as validated
>>>>> by tcp_conid_state(), and even in netstat I can see the connection
>>>>> established). In this log, 35.191.0.66:60271 would be the equivalent
>>>>> of 3.3.3.3:3333 and 104.175.176.242:28157 would be 1.1.1.1:1111 from
>>>>> the example above.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1657]: _tcpconn_find(): found connection by id: 1"}
>>>>> "message":" NOTICE: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <script>: JOEL TEST
>>>>> New request - M=BYE TCP STATUS:1 ID=5-LX4GdI9X"}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} nathelper
>>>>> [nathelper.c:1144]: handle_ruri_alias(): setting dst_uri to
>>>>> <sip:35.191.0.66:60271;transport=tls>"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} nathelper
>>>>> [nathelper.c:1166]: handle_ruri_alias(): rewriting r-uri to
>>>>> <sip:linphone@104.175.176.242:28157;transport=tls>"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:1328]:
>>>>> t_newtran(): msg (0x7f3c884259d0) id=534\/18664 global id=532\/18664 T
>>>>> start=0xffffffffffffffff"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:497]:
>>>>> t_lookup_request(): start searching: hash=63496, isACK=0"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:455]:
>>>>> matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction matching failed - via branch
>>>>> [z9hG4bK808f.eee2444f92a02cb33e1b7a21f20bc6bb.0]"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_lookup.c:675]:
>>>>> t_lookup_request(): no transaction found"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tm [t_hooks.c:336]:
>>>>> run_reqin_callbacks_internal(): trans=0x7f3c83b8c598, callback type 1, id >>>>> 0
>>>>> entered"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/crypto\/md5utils.c:67]: MD5StringArray(): MD5 calculated:
>>>>> 3071029feb05962b26b53a9664a14210"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} siputils
>>>>> [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} rr [loose.c:1095]:
>>>>> check_route_param(): route params checking against
>>>>> [;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=Eb~TbdfTA;did=cab.01e2;nat=yes] (orig:
>>>>> [r2=on;lr=on;ftag=Eb~TbdfTA;did=cab.01e2;nat=yes])"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} rr [loose.c:1101]:
>>>>> check_route_param(): params are
>>>>> <;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=Eb~TbdfTA;did=cab.01e2;nat=yes>"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} siputils
>>>>> [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/msg_translator.c:161]: check_via_address(): (198.1.54.228,
>>>>> 198.1.54.228, 0)"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:2060]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening
>>>>> new one"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/ip_addr.c:229]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection:
>>>>> 35.191.0.66"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1242]: tcpconn_new(): on port 60271, type 3"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} <core>
>>>>> [core\/tcp_main.c:1561]: tcpconn_add(): hashes: 1446:2350:0, 5"}
>>>>> "message":" DEBUG: {1 11727734 BYE 5-LX4GdI9X} tls [tls_server.c:199]:
>>>>> tls_complete_init(): completing tls connection initialization"}
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So time to seek help from the community, any
>>>>> suggestions/ideas/comments? Sorry if all this sounds confusing, I've tried
>>>>> my best to put in text the whole scenario in and "understandable" way...
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this even doable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Joel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing
> Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda --
> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin --
> www.kamailioworld.com
>
>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
