[Serusers] How to force IPtel.org SIP proxy not to include RTP proxy in Media path (achive peer-to-peer flow)
Hi,
I have 2 SIP based softphones (Xlite) registered on IPtel.org SIP service and testing the calls among them. These 2 softphones are behind different NAT and IPtel.org SIP proxy is replacing the SDP connection details in Call setup message (Invite and 200 OK) with RTPproxy IP/ports. Hence, RTPproxy is relaying the Voice media stream among them during the call.
Although, both the softphones are behind different NAT address but these are not Symmetric NATs and hence RTP can directly flow between these softphone using STUN discovery.
Is it possible to disable the RTP proxy behaviour of IPtel.org SER server for these 2 softphones through some configuration changes or any special header parameter in call setup message?
In User Management web interface of IPtel.org, there is a option to specify the connectivity realm for a user account under My Account -> Other tab.
The description of this field is "connectivity realm - behind the same NAT or possibility to communicate directly". I believe this field is playing some part in NAT transversal mechanism of Iptel.org SER implementation.
Can anyone please describe the significance of this user account parameter? Can it be used to disable NAT transversal of media stream for some individual clients? I tried putting in same value of this field for 2 user accounts but Iptel.org SIP server still proxied media stream between these 2 user accounts through its RTP proxy.
Thanks in advance. Girish
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
At 08:12 04/03/2008, girish kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 SIP based softphones (Xlite) registered on IPtel.org SIP service and testing the calls among them. These 2 softphones are behind different NAT and IPtel.org SIP proxy is replacing the SDP connection details in Call setup message (Invite and 200 OK) with RTPproxy IP/ports. Hence, RTPproxy is relaying the Voice media stream among them during the call.
Although, both the softphones are behind different NAT address but these are not Symmetric NATs and hence RTP can directly flow between these softphone using STUN discovery.
That's what I'm not sure about. If they were using STUN, iptelorg:5060 should not have detected them as natted. Any insight in this?
Is it possible to disable the RTP proxy behaviour of IPtel.org SER server for these 2 softphones through some configuration changes or any special header parameter in call setup message?
In User Management web interface of IPtel.org, there is a option to specify the connectivity realm for a user account under My Account -> Other tab.
The description of this field is "connectivity realm - behind the same NAT or possibility to communicate directly". I believe this field is playing some part in NAT transversal mechanism of Iptel.org SER implementation.
I think too that was thought so, but I think it is unused at the moment.
Can anyone please describe the significance of this user account parameter? Can it be used to disable NAT transversal of media stream for some individual clients? I tried putting in same value of this field for 2 user accounts but Iptel.org SIP server still proxied media stream between these 2 user accounts through its RTP proxy.
Do you experience any other troubles than latency or would you just like to cut the proxy out of the path?
-jiri
Thanks in advance. Girish
____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Yes, my main concern is regarding the Latency introduced due to round-trip media flow from Intranet to RTP proxy of IPtel.
In my current setup, this latency is getting unnecessarily introduced. Is there any way to avoid it?
--- Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
At 08:12 04/03/2008, girish kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 SIP based softphones (Xlite) registered on IPtel.org SIP service and testing the calls among them. These 2 softphones are behind different NAT
and
IPtel.org SIP proxy is replacing the SDP connection details in Call setup message (Invite and 200 OK)
with
RTPproxy IP/ports. Hence, RTPproxy is relaying the Voice media stream among them during the call.
Although, both the softphones are behind different
NAT
address but these are not Symmetric NATs and hence
RTP
can directly flow between these softphone using
STUN
discovery.
That's what I'm not sure about. If they were using STUN, iptelorg:5060 should not have detected them as natted. Any insight in this?
Is it possible to disable the RTP proxy behaviour
of
IPtel.org SER server for these 2 softphones through some configuration changes or any special header parameter in call setup message?
In User Management web interface of IPtel.org,
there
is a option to specify the connectivity realm for a user account under My Account -> Other tab.
The description of this field is "connectivity
realm -
behind the same NAT or possibility to communicate directly". I believe this field is playing some
part
in NAT transversal mechanism of Iptel.org SER implementation.
I think too that was thought so, but I think it is unused at the moment.
Can anyone please describe the significance of this user account parameter? Can it be used to disable
NAT
transversal of media stream for some individual clients? I tried putting in same value of this
field
for 2 user accounts but Iptel.org SIP server still proxied media stream between these 2 user accounts through its RTP proxy.
Do you experience any other troubles than latency or would you just like to cut the proxy out of the path?
-jiri
Thanks in advance. Girish
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
We may reintroduce indeed, I'm just not really sure when that's going to happen. Have you BTW some latency numbers? (ping times, whatever...)
-jiri
At 15:23 06/03/2008, girish kumar wrote:
Yes, my main concern is regarding the Latency introduced due to round-trip media flow from Intranet to RTP proxy of IPtel.
In my current setup, this latency is getting unnecessarily introduced. Is there any way to avoid it?
--- Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
At 08:12 04/03/2008, girish kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 SIP based softphones (Xlite) registered on IPtel.org SIP service and testing the calls among them. These 2 softphones are behind different NAT
and
IPtel.org SIP proxy is replacing the SDP connection details in Call setup message (Invite and 200 OK)
with
RTPproxy IP/ports. Hence, RTPproxy is relaying the Voice media stream among them during the call.
Although, both the softphones are behind different
NAT
address but these are not Symmetric NATs and hence
RTP
can directly flow between these softphone using
STUN
discovery.
That's what I'm not sure about. If they were using STUN, iptelorg:5060 should not have detected them as natted. Any insight in this?
Is it possible to disable the RTP proxy behaviour
of
IPtel.org SER server for these 2 softphones through some configuration changes or any special header parameter in call setup message?
In User Management web interface of IPtel.org,
there
is a option to specify the connectivity realm for a user account under My Account -> Other tab.
The description of this field is "connectivity
realm -
behind the same NAT or possibility to communicate directly". I believe this field is playing some
part
in NAT transversal mechanism of Iptel.org SER implementation.
I think too that was thought so, but I think it is unused at the moment.
Can anyone please describe the significance of this user account parameter? Can it be used to disable
NAT
transversal of media stream for some individual clients? I tried putting in same value of this
field
for 2 user accounts but Iptel.org SIP server still proxied media stream between these 2 user accounts through its RTP proxy.
Do you experience any other troubles than latency or would you just like to cut the proxy out of the path?
-jiri
Thanks in advance. Girish
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
At 08:12 04/03/2008, girish kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 SIP based softphones (Xlite) registered on IPtel.org SIP service and testing the calls among them. These 2 softphones are behind different NAT and IPtel.org SIP proxy is replacing the SDP connection details in Call setup message (Invite and 200 OK) with RTPproxy IP/ports. Hence, RTPproxy is relaying the Voice media stream among them during the call.
Although, both the softphones are behind different NAT address but these are not Symmetric NATs and hence RTP can directly flow between these softphone using STUN discovery.
That's what I'm not sure about. If they were using STUN, iptelorg:5060 should not have detected them as natted. Any insight in this?
Is it possible to disable the RTP proxy behaviour of IPtel.org SER server for these 2 softphones through some configuration changes or any special header parameter in call setup message?
In User Management web interface of IPtel.org, there is a option to specify the connectivity realm for a user account under My Account -> Other tab.
The description of this field is "connectivity realm - behind the same NAT or possibility to communicate directly". I believe this field is playing some part in NAT transversal mechanism of Iptel.org SER implementation.
I think too that was thought so, but I think it is unused at the moment.
Yes, it was meant to work this way. If both phones are configured to be in the same connectivity realm then the server assumes that they can reach each other directly and it does not enforce the RTP proxy, no matter what does the NAT detection algorithm says.
Unfortunately this option is not currently used in the configuration of the iptel.org SIP server.
I will try to put it back as time permits (because I need it myself for my phones).
Hope that helps, Jan.
-
girish kumar -
Jan Janak -
Jiri Kuthan