Hello Alex, Have you considered using add_contact_alias and handle_ruri_alias from the nathelper module?
add_contact_alias() can be invoked from REPLY routes and REQUEST routes. Also, can you post some of your haproxy config as well? I'm curious about the timeouts. David On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:40 PM Alex Balashov via sr-users < [email protected]> wrote: > Hate to bump this, but still haven't reached a satisfactory resolution and > would welcome any input. > > > On Feb 25, 2025, at 8:07 AM, Alex Balashov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > BTW, wouldn't a sensible solution be to allow force_tcp_alias() to > operate on replies? But as I understand the documentation, it only works on > requests. Right? > > > > — > > Sent from mobile, apologies for brevity and errors. > > > >> On Feb 22, 2025, at 5:51 PM, Alex Balashov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am converting a Kamailio WSS/TLS gateway to pure TCP, with an > external HAProxy handling TLS termination and emitting the proxied > connection as plain TCP. I am using the PROXYv2 protocol, with > `tcp_accept_haproxy=yes`, to convey the upstream network and > transport-layer reachability info into Kamailio. > >> > >> I am trying to figure out best practices for mapping the contacts on > those connections to the proxied connections themselves. > >> > >> For registrations, tcp_force_alias() (with `tcp_accept_aliases=yes`) > works well, and inbound calls go to the right place. However, I'm not quite > sure what to do with other flows, such as, for example, in-dialog requests > on inbound calls going to the TLS endpoints. > >> > >> There are obviously a lot of possibilities, all or most of which I've > tinkered with. These generally involve either {s.replace}-ing > `;transport=tls` with `;transport=tcp` in the contacts received from the > client, or using the traditional `nathelper` contact alias / RURI alias bag > of tricks. However, I don't like the former solution because it leads to a > non-compliant R-URI going to the endpoint (it's not the ;transport it sent > in its contact), and I don't like the latter because it seems like there > are too many moving parts. > >> > >> When tcp_force_alias() works so well for registrations, there must be > some small linchpin I'm missing for normal request-reply flows. What is it? > >> > >> Thanks in advance! > >> > >> -- Alex > >> > >> -- > >> Alex Balashov > >> Principal Consultant > >> Evariste Systems LLC > >> Web: https://evaristesys.com > >> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 > >> > > -- > Alex Balashov > Principal Consultant > Evariste Systems LLC > Web: https://evaristesys.com > Tel: +1-706-510-6800 > > __________________________________________________________ > Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions -- > [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to > the sender! >
__________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
