[SIPForum-discussion] Why CANT a SIP (UDP) packet go through a IP gateway whereas a ICMP packet CAN ?!

[Badri Ranganathan]

Hi all,

Could someone help me with a strange problem I'm facing. (or is it strange only to me ?! ).    I have a setup as below -

Linux Box1 (eth2) --------------------- D E L L - S E R V E R ------------------------(eth3)Linux Box 2
(10.30.104.3/28)                            (10.30.104.1/28)                         (10.30.103.1/28)                               (10.30.103.2/28)

I have a sip client running on both linux box 1 and linux box 2.
So linux box1 is on network 10.30.104.0 and linux box2 belongs to network 10.30.103.0 (because of the /28 !)

On linux Box 1, I have a route setup to reach 10.30.103.0 as follows -
route add -net 10.30.103.0 netmask 255.255.255.240 dev eth2

On linux Box 2, I have a route setup to reach 10.30.104.0 as follows -
route add -net 10.30.104.0 netmask 255.255.255.240 dev eth3


I am able to ping to 10.30.103.2 from 10.30.104.3 and vice versa.

But when I try to make a SIP call to client 10.30.103.2 from client 10.30.104.3, I can't see the INVITE message on Linux Box 2 ! I can see the INVITE getting sent to the DELL SERVER (as I run wireshark on all these boxes including the dell server !)

Why does the DELL SERVER NOT forward the INVITE request to the Linux Box 2 in the same way that it sent the ICMP packet earlier when I did a ping !! Both are IP packets right.
Does the DELL Server need to be replaced by a router? Or otherwise - Do I need to do any IP Forwarding configuration etc on the DELL server to enable the packets to go from one network to the other?

(The reason I neither used a Router nor tried to do any IP Forwarding/iptables etc., on the DELL Server is because I am able to reach Linux Box2 from Box 1 through a ping, and I believe  it should be ok for any IP packet.)

Sincerely appreciate any help on solving my problem.

Thanks,
Badri.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130627/0bb795c0/attachment-0002.html>