Hi Bogdan, Thanks for clarification, I'll try to monitor this and analyze it further!
In regards to 'it simply replace the host:port part of the contact with the src IP and port from network level' for example if request is coming from 172.16.22.4:5060 and Contact is set to 'sip:172.167.22.4:5060', would fix_nated_contact() just replace Contact with the same values? As it doesn't have any 'received' parameter to replace this Contact with? Thanks! On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:55 PM Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bog...@opensips.org> wrote: > See inline > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu > > OpenSIPS Founder and Developer > https://www.opensips-solutions.com > OpenSIPS eBootcamp 23rd May - 3rd June 2022 > https://opensips.org/training/OpenSIPS_eBootcamp_2022/ > > On 5/3/22 11:40 AM, Yury Kirsanov wrote: > > Hi Bogdan, > Will fix_nated_register() overwrite results of a fix_nated_contact()? > > no, use either one, either the other, but not both in the same time - see > the docs for the nathelper module for details. > > > Second question - for 'OPTIONS' where Contact is available - should > fix_nated_contact() replace it with the correct one? > > yes, if you relay the OPTIONS > > Where exactly does this function take the value to replace Contact with - > from '$avp(received)' param? > > no, it is taken from the network level, the src IP and port. > > So it won't do anything if, for example, OPTIONS packet comes from my LAN > Asterisk server and reaches the OpenSIPS LAN interface? > > the fix_nated_xxxX() does not do any testing, it simply replace the > host:port part of the contact with the src IP and port from network level. > > Even though nat_uac_test(7) would confirm a RFC1918 private > address fix_nated_contact() can't do much in this case, is that correct? > > Thanks a lot for your help! > > Best regards, > Yury. > > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:25 PM Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bog...@opensips.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Yury, >> >> For a REGISTER you should use the fix_nated_register() function. >> >> Regards, >> >> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >> >> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer >> https://www.opensips-solutions.com >> OpenSIPS eBootcamp 23rd May - 3rd June 2022 >> https://opensips.org/training/OpenSIPS_eBootcamp_2022/ >> >> On 5/2/22 8:07 PM, Yury Kirsanov wrote: >> >> Hi Bogdan, >> No, nothing in OpenSIPS logs, unfortunately. >> >> Here's another log, I'm doing 'fix_nated_register' in this case at the >> REGISTER route and doing 'fix_nated_contact()' at the very beginning of my >> script, just for the testing purpose. >> >> May 3 03:00:48 [REGISTER] [123456->123456] Forwarding REGISTER from >> sip:123...@domain.com:5060, requested Expries: 60 to main registrar at >> sip:172.16.4.22:5060 (84327f479c5d50e1634422f72a0b7619) >> May 3 03:00:48 [REPLY] [123456->123456] REGISTER 401 >> Unauthorized FROM 172.16.4.22:5060 (84327f479c5d50e1634422f72a0b7619) >> May 3 03:00:48 [REGISTER] [123456->123456] Request from >> 1XX.1XX.1XX.1XX:8001, domain domain.com >> (84327f479c5d50e1634422f72a0b7619) >> May 3 03:00:48 [REGISTER] [123456->123456] Forwarding REGISTER from >> sip:123...@domain.com:5060, requested Expries: 60 to main registrar at >> sip:172.16.4.22:5060 (84327f479c5d50e1634422f72a0b7619) >> May 3 03:00:48 [REPLY] [123456->123456] REGISTER 200 OK FROM >> 172.16.4.22:5060 (84327f479c5d50e1634422f72a0b7619) >> May 3 03:00:48 [REGREPLY] [123456->123456] Reply from >> 172.16.4.22:5060, code is 200 - OK, saving contact >> (84327f479c5d50e1634422f72a0b7619) >> May 3 03:00:48 [EVENT] Inserting contact sip:123456@192.168.1.36:8001 >> (569f6c324981335e0b33daf8fc88ed77) >> May 3 03:00:51 [OPTIONS] OPTIONS request from 172.16.4.22:5060 to >> sip:123456@172.16.4.254:5060, fu is sip:123456@1XX.1XX.1XX.1XX >> May 3 03:00:51 [OPTIONS] [123456->123456] SIP device >> sip:123456@172.16.4.254 found, relaying to sip:1XX.1XX.1XX.1XX:8001 >> (76f4319976c85e45b2ff916581912550) >> >> No errors in OpenSIPS logs. Here's output of 'opensips-cli -x mi fifo >> ul_dump': >> >> "AORs": [ >> { >> "AOR": "123456", >> "Contacts": [ >> { >> "Contact": "sip:123456@192.168.1.36:8001", >> "ContactID": "3713509073413807284", >> "Expires": 47, >> "Q": "", >> "Callid": "6_3941098626", >> "Cseq": 2, >> "User-agent": "Yealink SIP-T46G 28.83.0.120", >> "Received": "sip:1XX.1XX.1XX.1XX:8001", >> "State": "CS_SYNC", >> "Flags": 0, >> "Cflags": "", >> "Socket": "udp:1XX.1XX.1XX.1XX:5060", >> "Methods": 16383 >> } >> ] >> } >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> Yury. >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 12:29 AM Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bog...@opensips.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Are there any errors when the "fixing" is done? The presence of a param >>> should not impact here. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bogdan >>> >>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >>> >>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer >>> https://www.opensips-solutions.com >>> OpenSIPS eBootcamp 23rd May - 3rd June 2022 >>> https://opensips.org/training/OpenSIPS_eBootcamp_2022/ >>> >>> On 4/29/22 1:43 PM, Yury Kirsanov wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> I'm using OpenSIPS 3.2.4 and recently run into following issue: >>> >>> Imagine simplest proxy setup - OpenSIPS just accepts new packet, for >>> example INVITE, changes destination using 'sethostport(....)' and then >>> issues 't_relay()' to forward the packet. Let's ignore replies and so on. >>> >>> If I'm doing a 'fix_nated_contact()' before sending this packet I'm >>> expecting Contact: field to be replaced with a source IP:port as per >>> manual. And this works if the Contact is in simple form like ' >>> sip:7777777@192.168.29.106:65033'. >>> >>> But if following Contact comes in OpenSIPS doesn't change it leaving >>> private IP in the contact: >>> >>> 'Contact: sip:7777777@192.168.29.106:65033;rinstance=2f59b175103f1088' >>> >>> Can you please let me know why is that happening? Thanks! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Yury. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing >>> listUsers@lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users