Hello, do you have mhomed enabled? Are there routes from both IP addresses to the destination?
IIRC, not that long ago I pointed to some article about linux not ensuring what would be the local ip used for tcp connections when many interfaces are having routes to destination. I couldn't find it quickly now, though. What you can try is to force advertised address with: listen=tcp:1.2.3.4:5060 advertise 1.2.3.4:5060 Cheers, Daniel On 05/05/15 15:02, Mickael Marrache wrote: > > Here, there are 2 interfaces but only the VIP should be used. Also, > the INVITE exits the same interface it entered (i.e. the VIP) but > exits with a different source port (because of the TCP connection). > > > > I tried disabling double RR, I only see the VIP record route now, > however I still see the top Via with the non-VIP interface although > the INVITE is forwarded to the proxy using the VIP interface. > > > > *From:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alex Balashov > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:31 PM > *To:* Mickael Marrache; sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Double record routes > > > > That is normal behaviour if double RR is enabled in the RR module; two > Record-Routes will be added if Kamailio is multihomed and the invite > exits a different interface to the one it entered. > > > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 > Atlanta, GA 30346 > United States > > Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ > > Sent from my BlackBerry. > > *From: *Mickael Marrache > > *Sent: *Tuesday, May 5, 2015 08:27 > > *To: *sr-users@lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> > > *Reply To: *Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > > *Subject: *[SR-Users] Double record routes > > > > Hi, > > > > We are adding TCP support to our load balancer and for some reason it > adds two record route headers. > > > > The instance have two IP addresses on which it binds: one if the VIP > address and the second is the non-VIP address. > > > > I explicitly set the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter with the VIP address so > that it is used as source address for outbound TCP connection. > > > > So, we get the following INVITE going from the load balancer to a proxy: > > > > T 2015/05/05 12:08:49.715822 VIP:54667 -> PROXY:5060 [AP] > > INVITE sip:1...@mycompany.com SIP/2.0. > > Record-Route: <sip:NONVIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>. > > Record-Route: <sip:VIP;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr>. > > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP > NONVIP;branch=z9hG4bK6f4.688efa90a17e02181ef7a11fecf8bb72.0;i=3. > > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP > 1.1.1.1:4598;received=2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKmqFaCxNo6m3f5LW4;rport=40020. > > > > You can see the INVITE is sent from the VIP address (as specified > using the tcp_source_ipv4 parameter). However, the added Via > corresponds to the non-VIP address. Also, you can see the two record > route headers added for both addresses. > > > > Any idea? > > > > Thanks, > > Mickael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015 Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
_______________________________________________ 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
