Hi Alexander,
indeed, it seams you have case. Even if the draft says that the alias
tuple must include the VIA ip:port, currently the IP is considered as
received IP. Why? not sure (is Andrei's work), but I can speculate on
the overhead introduce in getting the address from via and convert it to
IP (via may contain DNS name which should be resolved!).
If we go ahead on this road, right, you need a way to set the NAT IP in
the contact -> use fix_nated_contact() which does not support TCP :D. I
do not like this approach because the alias is a mixture between the NAT
IP and the inside port :/
If we go as the draft says, and use via ip:port we have to face the need
of performing DNS lookup only to generate the alias ....this is even
uglier and more dangerous. and also we will end having private IPs in
RURIs and in aliases..which is a little bit tricky - a private IP is not
unique ;).
so, I would say the best way is the first one....and to allow
fix_nated_contact() also for TCP/TLS.........
regards,
bogdan
Alexander Ph. Lintenhofer wrote:
Hi All,
I just wanted to ask you once again about the TCP-alias riddle. I
found out, that there is a problem with the combination of
fix_nated_contact(), force_tcp_alias() and NAT:
Imagine following situation:
Alice behind NAT: socket 172.16.0.6:2421
Nat-Box translates this to 192.168.0.13:6007
The Outbound-Proxy of Alice is 192.168.0.1
Bob is registered with 192.168.1.1
1.)
Her INVITE:
====================================================================
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2331;transport=tcp;line=wxqurd1s SIP/2.0
[...]
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 172.16.0.6:2421;received=192.168.0.13;
branch=z9hG4bK-wm9jcstcboys;rport=6007
From: "Alice" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=sufzmxi0us
To: "Bob" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=c9550czwtn
[...]
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2421;transport=tcp;line=fyyuh6tl>
[...]
====================================================================
2.)
fix_nated_contact() doesn't work with TCP (look at nathelper.c).
force_tcp_alias() now creates following tuple as TCP-alias:
192.168.0.13:6007 to 192.168.0.13:2421
Reason:
The TCP-alias is not built solely from the Via-header as suggested in
the draft. The portnumber is taken from the Via-header and the
IP-address is taken from the source of the incoming datagram. I read
it in the sourcecode and assured it by contacting Andrei!
3.)
So as a result of the notfixed Contact-header of Alice's INVITE the
BYE of Bob is addressed to 172.16.0.6:2421. But no TCP-alias exists
for this socket :-(
4.)
I made following test by rewriting the Contact-header....
====================================================================
if (method=="INVITE")
{
replace("Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2421;transport=tcp;",
"Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2421;transport=tcp;");
}
====================================================================
...with success. Now TCP-alias works as you can see on my
Ethereal-trace below!
Compare the destination port of the packet to the destination port of
the RURI!
====================================================================
[...]
Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: 5060 (5060), Dst Port: 6007
(6007), ...
Session Initiation Protocol
Request-Line: BYE
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2421;transport=tcp;line=fyyuh6tl SIP/2.0
Message Header
[...]
From: "Bob" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=kcsveifugd
To: "Alice" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=ricaq5cy15
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2331;transport=tcp;line=wxqurd1s>
[...]
====================================================================
Another solution:
Comment the lines in nathelper.c which force the return in case of TCP
or TLS. Now all works well!
But why??????????????
regards,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
