Thank you Mikael

I read your post and tried before I posted.

I'm sure there's no problem with routing.
Let me detail on my platform.

Debian 4 with iproute2
three NICs

sw01:/etc/iproute2# cat rt_tables
#
# reserved values
#
255     local
254     main
253     default
0       unspec
#
# local
#
#1      inr.ruhep
201     net59
202     net220
203     net192

sw01:/etc# ifconfig
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0C:76:80:5D:00
          inet addr:59.124.100.86  Bcast:59.124.100.95  Mask:255.255.255.224

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0C:76:80:5D:01
          inet addr:192.168.1.5  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0

eth2      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:02:B3:38:E8:B8
          inet addr:220.228.43.182  Bcast:220.228.43.191 
Mask:255.255.255.192

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0

sw01:/etc# cat rc.local
P1_NET=59.124.100.64
IF1=eth0
IP1=59.124.100.86
P1=59.124.100.65
T1=net59

P2_NET=220.228.43.128
IF2=eth2
IP2=220.228.43.182
P2=220.228.43.129
T2=net220

P3_NET=192.168.1.0
IF3=eth1
IP3=192.168.1.5
P3=192.168.1.1
T3=net192

ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 table $T1
ip route add default via $P1 dev $IF1 table $T1
ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 table $T2
ip route add default via $P2 dev $IF2 table $T2
ip route add $P3_NET dev $IF3 src $IP3 table $T3
ip route add default via $P3 dev $IF3 table $T3

ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1
ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2
ip route add $P3_NET dev $IF3 src $IP3

ip rule add from $IP1 table $T1
ip rule add from $IP2 table $T2
ip rule add from $IP3 table $T3

ip route flush cache


I tested with ping and udp echo and tcpdump so that I'm sure UDP packets are 
sent via correct eth interface to correct gateway. The problem is that 
callweaver (or asterisk) sets identical source IP address in all UDP 
packets.

Mikael your case is a little different. Your server is behind a NAT so that 
you can force non-local packets to ONE SINGLE identical source IP address. 
You're lucky. I will be glad if you can try a server with TWO public 
addresses and tell me I'm wrong understanding.

But anyway, thank you for your response.


Franz




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikael Bjerkeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Developers Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Callweaver-dev] Multihomed server


> lør, 26.05.2007 kl. 12.07 +0800, skrev Franz Wu:
>> Hi List
>>
>> I just tested a server with two NICs, say
>>     NIC#1: IP A, eth0
>>     NIC#2: IP B, eth1
>>
>> IP A and IP B are public IP on different IP subnets
>>
>> I sniffered and found, like asterisk, callweaver always uses the IP A as
>> source IP in all UDP packets.
>> That causes problem with SIP clients that register themselves to IP B.
>>
>> I think there're several scenarios:
>> 1. clients initiate transactions like INVITE. callweaver needs to keep 
>> track
>> of what interface and IP received SIP method.
>> 2. callweaver initiates transactions. callweaver needs to remember what
>> interface got REGISTER from a specific client.
>> 3. manual config for a specific client, especially those won't register.
>> 4. need more consideration about multiple registration.
>>
>>
>> anybody interested in making multihomed servers working?
>> I'm trying to make it work, but help needed.
>>
>> Franz Wu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callweaver-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
>
>
> Hi Franz,
>
> this is probably a routing issue. In my setup this works great. I have
> internal clients, external clients on NIC 1 and external clients on NIC
> 2.
>
> Take a look at the page I created about multihoming OpenPBX.org. The
> same scenario will work in CallWeaver and Asterisk.
>
> See http://wiki.openpbx.org/tiki-index.php?page=OpenPBX.org%20Multihomed
>
>
>
> Mikael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callweaver-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
Callweaver-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev

Reply via email to