There is a tarball in the 8.11 directory tree, but not in the 8.12 tree.
The file in the 8.11 tree does not contain any html files just like in cvs.
Where are files like epilog.html, preload.js, separator.html, etc...?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:50 PM
To: Brad White; 'serusers(a)lists.iptel.org'
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Where are the html files for serweb?
I suppose you are not interested in serweb alone and wish to get SER.
In the SER download directory is serweb as well, the version which
is known to match the version of SER.
-jiri
At 07:02 PM 12/12/2003, Brad White wrote:
>I just downloaded the tarball from cvs and it contains no html files. The
<http://developer.berlios.de/projects/serweb/>http://developer.berlios.de/pr
ojects/serweb/ site shows that there are not any files other than cvs
available for download.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Brad White
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
I just downloaded the tarball from cvs and it contains no html files. The
http://developer.berlios.de/projects/serweb/ site shows that there are not
any files other than cvs available for download.
Thanks.
Brad White
Hello List,
I am trying to get SER + nathelper working with multiple RTP proxies on the route (please read the mail appended below on the problem I am trying to solve and how am trying to solve it). I spent sometime understanding the internals of SER - but it will be great if anyone can help me with the following problem -
My test settings is -
UA1 ---- NAT ---- SER/RTP1 ----- SER/RTP2 ------- UA2
I am forcing rtpproxy on SER2 also.
In file nathelper.c, I added a test case in force_rtp_proxy_f(..) to check if the SIP/SDP packet was sent by a device behind NAT. I use the SER received_test(msg) to do this check (which is basically a msg->via1->host == msg->rcv.src_ip test). I try setting up a call from UA1 to UA2. When SER1 receives the SIP/SDP packet from UA1, the received_test correctly detects that UA1 is behind NAT. But when UA2 sends back an OK with its SDP data (which SER2 modifies before sending it to SER1), a received_test (in SER1) on this SIP/SDP message returns positive (isn't via1 added by SER2? and via2 the one added by UA1?).
I will appreciate any help on this. Is there any better way to do this? I am not doing a check on contact header since fix_nated_contact may have already been called (save reason for not checking the SDP contact information).
Sorry I am unable to add any debugging information - as I am writing from home.
Regards,
Dhiraj
Network Security Specialist,
BT Exact
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:39 PM
> To: jiri(a)iptel.org; sobomax(a)portaone.com
> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: [Serusers] nat + multiple RTP proxy
>
>
> Greetings list,
> I spent some time looking into the rtpproxy and nathelper
> code. Currently, nathelper + rtpproxy will work ONLY if there
> is "one" RTP proxy on the path. In a scenario like -
>
> UA1 ---- NAT ---- SER/RTP1 ----- SER/RTP2 ---- NAT --- UA2
>
> where UA1 and UA2 are subscribed to two different SERs and
> are also behind NAT, RTP proxy 1 never forwards the RTP
> traffic from UA1 to RTP proxy 2 (because of the way it is
> designed) since RTP1 is waiting for at least one RTP packet
> from RTP proxy 2 and vice versa - hence the deadlock.
>
> This can be fixed if the RTP proxy waits for one UDP packet
> from the device behind NAT, but does not wait for any packets
> from the device it thinks is not behind NAT before forwarding
> it the RTP traffic (coming from the other end). Thus in the
> above scenario, RTP 1 waits for at least one packet from UA1
> - but does not wait for any packet from RTP2.
>
> I am writing a patch for nathelper and rtpproxy to add this
> functionality (should be available by next week). Anyone -
> any thoughts on this?
>
> Dhiraj Bhuyan
> Network Security Specialist,
> BT Exact Business Assurance Solutions
>
> Tel: +44 1473 643932
> Mob: +44 7962 012145
> Email: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
The problem was already discussed in
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2003-November/003461.html
and the suggested solution was the same as your solution.
Klaus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:39 PM
> To: jiri(a)iptel.org; sobomax(a)portaone.com
> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: [Serusers] nat + multiple RTP proxy
>
>
> Greetings list,
> I spent some time looking into the rtpproxy and nathelper
> code. Currently, nathelper + rtpproxy will work ONLY if there
> is "one" RTP proxy on the path. In a scenario like -
>
> UA1 ---- NAT ---- SER/RTP1 ----- SER/RTP2 ---- NAT --- UA2
>
> where UA1 and UA2 are subscribed to two different SERs and
> are also behind NAT, RTP proxy 1 never forwards the RTP
> traffic from UA1 to RTP proxy 2 (because of the way it is
> designed) since RTP1 is waiting for at least one RTP packet
> from RTP proxy 2 and vice versa - hence the deadlock.
>
> This can be fixed if the RTP proxy waits for one UDP packet
> from the device behind NAT, but does not wait for any packets
> from the device it thinks is not behind NAT before forwarding
> it the RTP traffic (coming from the other end). Thus in the
> above scenario, RTP 1 waits for at least one packet from UA1
> - but does not wait for any packet from RTP2.
>
> I am writing a patch for nathelper and rtpproxy to add this
> functionality (should be available by next week). Anyone -
> any thoughts on this?
>
> Dhiraj Bhuyan
> Network Security Specialist,
> BT Exact Business Assurance Solutions
>
> Tel: +44 1473 643932
> Mob: +44 7962 012145
> Email: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
Greetings list,
I spent some time looking into the rtpproxy and nathelper code. Currently, nathelper + rtpproxy will work ONLY if there is "one" RTP proxy on the path. In a scenario like -
UA1 ---- NAT ---- SER/RTP1 ----- SER/RTP2 ---- NAT --- UA2
where UA1 and UA2 are subscribed to two different SERs and are also behind NAT, RTP proxy 1 never forwards the RTP traffic from UA1 to RTP proxy 2 (because of the way it is designed) since RTP1 is waiting for at least one RTP packet from RTP proxy 2 and vice versa - hence the deadlock.
This can be fixed if the RTP proxy waits for one UDP packet from the device behind NAT, but does not wait for any packets from the device it thinks is not behind NAT before forwarding it the RTP traffic (coming from the other end). Thus in the above scenario, RTP 1 waits for at least one packet from UA1 - but does not wait for any packet from RTP2.
I am writing a patch for nathelper and rtpproxy to add this functionality (should be available by next week). Anyone - any thoughts on this?
Dhiraj Bhuyan
Network Security Specialist,
BT Exact Business Assurance Solutions
Tel: +44 1473 643932
Mob: +44 7962 012145
Email: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com
If you want 2 NATed devices to talk to each other, you MUST use an RTP proxy (except you want to manually configure the NAT router of every participant).
Sessions between one public and one NATed client might work depending on the used SIP applications. Therefore, using an RTP proxy as soon at least one client is behind NAT is suggested!
It's very simple, take a look at the config script at:
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?…
This will show you how to test if user agents are behind a NAT, how to rewrite the SIP messages and how to integrate the RTP proxy.
Note: NAT traversal using RTP proxies and the nathelper module works only if the SIP client is symmetric (=sending and receiving on the same port, SIP and RTP).
regards,
Klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Pablo Murillo [mailto:ser@rednet.com.ar]
Sent: Thu 11.12.2003 21:20
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc:
Subject: [Serusers] Totally lost! proxies, firewalls, gateways, etc, etc,etc ...
Hi
I'm totally lost
I have ser working very well (at least, I think so), with ans_machine
(sems), varius exec_dset, numbering, etc, etc, etcBut I Don't know (or
found) how to solve the "connectios" troubles
For example:
Two devices (hard/soft phone) with public IP, NO PROBLEM, works OK
On device with public, one with private IP, works some times, NOT allways
Two device with private IP, never work :(
I know where is the problem (IPs), but I don't know where to find a "soft"
solution or a "hard" solution, NOT to expensive
Stun server
Vovida: I don't like product without docs
Some knows other STUN server ?
RTP_proxy:
I can't understand how it works :(
I tested with nat, but I can't understand how it's work
For example, how can I choose who will need to use nat helper and who not ?
I don't know what other solutions are there
Ideas ?
Thanks in advance
Pablo Murillo
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Yes, you are right! That, and the additional introduced delay, are
drawbacks!
Klaus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pablo Murillo [mailto:pm@rednet.com.ar]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:06 PM
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Totally lost! proxies, firewalls,
> gateways, etc, etc,etc ...
>
>
> Thanks Klaus, but ...
>
> If, I use RTP proxy all the traffic would go through my server or am I
> mistaken?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> If you want 2 NATed devices to talk to each other, you MUST
> use an RTP proxy
> (except you want to manually configure the NAT router of
> every participant).
>
> Sessions between one public and one NATed client might work
> depending on the
> used SIP applications. Therefore, using an RTP proxy as soon
> at least one
> client is behind NAT is suggested!
>
> It's very simple, take a look at the config script at:
> http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/n
athelper.cfg?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
This will show you how to test if user agents are behind a NAT, how to
rewrite the SIP messages and how to integrate the RTP proxy.
Note: NAT traversal using RTP proxies and the nathelper module works
only if
the SIP client is symmetric (=sending and receiving on the same port,
SIP
and RTP).
--------------------------------
Pablo Murillo
Of course your right! I misunderstood the question and talked about
ser's port.
In addition, if the Via header includes the "rport" parameter, then ser
will send the request to the port from which the request was sent -
useful for NAT traversal.
Klaus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Hoeneisen [mailto:bhoeneis@switch.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:12 AM
> To: Klaus Darilion
> Cc: Santosh Subramanian, Noida; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] response port..?
>
>
> Hi!
>
> According to the standards, this depends on the Via header
> field entry,
> which the User Agent is inserting to the REGISTER request.
> Responses are
> routed according to the topmost Via header field (every SIP
> hop removes
> its own Via header field entry). So if the User Agent has inserted a
> different port to its Via header field, e.g. something like
>
> REGISTER sip:registar.xyz.ch SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 130.59.6.181:8888
> From: ...
>
> The response will be sent to port 8888
>
> If no port is specified, the default port (5060) will be used.
> I assume, that in SER it is implemented according to the standards.
> Or am I wrong...?
>
> cheers,
> Bernie
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>
> >
> > The default behaviour is that ser listen and sends on the same port:
> >
> > Register
> > your client ------------> ser (port 5060)
> >
> >
> > 200 OK
> > your client <------------ ser (port 5060)
> >
> >
> > klaus
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Santosh Subramanian, Noida
> [mailto:Santoshsu@noida.hcltech.com]
> > Sent: Thu 11.12.2003
> 06:54
> > To: 'serusers(a)lists.iptel.org'
> > Cc:
> > Subject: [Serusers] response port..?
> >
> > If I use the port 5060 for sending REGISTER request,
> response from SER
> > will be on the same port or on different port no..?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Santhosh.S
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
>
>
Hi,
I am running SER proxy in my local network. If I want to send all the
outgoing calls to iptel.org server,
what settings I should include extra in my proxy server..?
By including the nathelper module, will I be able to transmit data through
firewall automatically..?
for example, only the port 5060 is enabled in the firewall.
Kind Regards,
Santhosh.S
Hi,
Can I forward SIP request to H323 gateway?
the scenario is like, we have sip server (SER), I want to offer pstn/IP termination with a partner who uses H323
can i do that? if yes how
regards,
Madan
