On 03/29/2011 03:32 PM, Asgaroth wrote:
Hi Marius,
Hello Asgaroth,
Comments inline
I have sent you another email in the thread but no reply. Can you
confirm that you have a listening UDP socket on the interface that is
selected by the kernel for sending the datagram in a mhomed
environment. If you are not listening on that interface Kamailio will
complain with the error message you received in mhomed=1 config
I have my kamailio configuration as follows:
listen=192.168.1.100:5060
listen=192.168.2.100:5060
And my linux server ip configuration is as follows:
Where 192.168.1.99/192.168.2.99 is the ip address configured for the
respective interfaces, and the 192.168.1.100/192.168.2.100 are the
"virtual" interfaces created by ucarp.
[root@testprxy #] ip addr show
2: eth0:<BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
qlen 1000
link/ether 00:0c:29:9d:0d:c5 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.99/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0
inet 192.168.1.100/32 scope global eth0
inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe9d:dc5/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: eth1:<BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
qlen 1000
link/ether 00:0c:29:9d:0d:cf brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.2.99/24 brd 192.168.2.255 scope global eth1
inet 192.168.2.100/32 scope global eth1
inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe9d:dcf/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Do I need to have kamailio listen on the 192.168.1.99/192.168.2.99
addresses as well?
I think currently the kernel my select 192.168.1.99 to route out to
192.168.1.x/24, and 192.168.2.99 to route out to 192.168.2.x. See
routeing table below:
[root@testprxy #] ip route show
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.99
192.168.2.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.99
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
Yes , for kamailio to send datagrams on those interfaces it has to
explicitely listen on them.
Now if I did something like:
ip rule add from 192.168.1.100/32 table 100
ip rule add to 192.168.1.100/32 table 100
ip rule add to 192.168.1.0/24 table 100
ip route add default via 192.168.1.1 table 100
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 src 192.168.1.100 table 100
ip rule add from 192.168.2.100 table 101
ip rule add to 192.168.2.100 table 101
ip rule add to 192.168.2.0/24 table 101
ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.2.100 table 101
Would kamailio be able to use those interfaces then?
Thanks
The restriction is from a design/functionality p.o.v. Kamailio must be
able to receive a reply (response) on the interface it sends to. So if
you can ensure that the kernel will choose one interface that kamailio
is bound to, then you are ok, but if it choses one iface that kamailio
does not listen, then you have no way of sending the datagram(and that
error will appear).
I can't really say that the route table will work. One way I used for
testing is via Ping or netcat without any local parameters. The choosing
of the local address and port is left to the kernel, the same as
kamailio with mhomed, so if you can find a suitable routeing table where
only the ucarp interfaces are selected then you are ok. Why don't you
listen also on 192.168.1.99/192.168.2.99 ?
Marius.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
