17 Feb
2005
17 Feb
'05
6:39 a.m.
Hi,
I have found the following message from the mailing list.
I also saw your question on RFC compliance and the Sonus equipment: In order to make
Grandstream phones register properly when using STUN behind
symmetric NAT, I had to patch nathelper with the rport != port of received
address check. (I use 0.8.14 and I guess you already have the patch with
the development version). The reason is that Grandstream attempts to
rewrite the address using STUN even though it correctly detects a symmetric
NAT. I have seen that this was introduced in a new firmware not long ago (release
notes). This pussles me as sources I have seen claims this to beinvalid behavior (which
seems correct to me).
It seems that I am facing the same problem now. Is there any solution to us? Where could I
download the nathelper patch as described above?
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Thomas
17 Feb
17 Feb
10:40 a.m.
That quote seems familiar... Yes, you should use "19" as the parameter to nat
test to catch the Grandstream symmetric NAT rewrite. Instead of patching 0.8.14, I
suggest that you download the 0.9.0 CVS version of ser and just copies in the source files
from the nathelper directory. If I'm not mistaken, no 0.9.0 specific changes have been
introduced in nathelper. Note that you also should be sure to have the latest cvs version
of rtpproxy.
g-)
---- Original Message ----
From: support
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 05:39 AM
Subject: [Serusers] nathelper patch
Hi,
I have found the following message from the mailing list.
I also saw your question on RFC compliance and the Sonus equipment:
In order to make Grandstream phones register properly when using STUN
behindsymmetric NAT, I had to patch nathelper with the rport != port
of receivedaddress check. (I use 0.8.14 and I guess you already have
the patch with the development version). The reason is that
Grandstream attempts to rewrite the address using STUN even though it
correctly detects a symmetric NAT. I have seen that this was
introduced in a new firmware not long ago (release notes). This
pussles me as sources I have seen claims this to beinvalid behavior
(which seems correct to me).
It seems that I am facing the same problem now. Is there any solution
to us? Where could I download the nathelper patch as described above?
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7219
days inactive
7219
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Greger V. Teigre -
support