13 Nov
2004
13 Nov
'04
9:26 p.m.
Hi list,
I'm new with SER and the first problem I got was with NAT.
Does anybody could help me sending a example of this configuration?
Vitor Brasileiro.
13 Nov
13 Nov
9:36 p.m.
Look at the <ser-source>/modules/rtpproxy and <ser-source>/modules/mediaproxy
directories.
There are README files. Personally, I'd recommend using mediaproxy because it seems to
be more
effective with handling NATed clients. There is a sample cfg file in the mediaproxy
directory.
Regards,
Paul
--- Vitor Brasileiro <vitorbrasileiromail(a)yahoo.com.br> wrote:
Hi list,
I'm new with SER and the first problem I got was with NAT.
Does anybody could help me sending a example of this configuration?
Vitor Brasileiro.> _______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
11:59 p.m.
Hi there
Java Rockx wrote:
Look at the <ser-source>/modules/rtpproxy
don't you mean modules/nathelper ? :-)
and <ser-source>/modules/mediaproxy
directories.
There are README files. Personally, I'd recommend using mediaproxy because it seems
to be more
effective with handling NATed clients. There is a sample cfg file in the mediaproxy
directory.
can comment on mediaproxy, but I'm using nathelper on
SER 0.8.14 with rtpproxy (from CVS, the tar linked on
voip-info.org don't work) and example found at
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?…
and it worked at first, like a charm
in fact, it worked so well that I'm still asking myself
if I was supposed to configure anything on clients to
make it work or not (i.e. Outbound proxy or Stun server
like in grandstream phones and adapters)
if anyone can enlight me on this, I'd appreciate
Cheers
!3runo
from Brazil
P.S. rtpproxy for SER 0.8.14 can be get with
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.ser.berlios.de:/cvsroot/ser co rtpproxy
14 Nov
14 Nov
1:09 a.m.
What I actually meant was using either rtpproxy with nathelper **OR** using mediaproxy.
I've had better success with mediaproxy because rtpproxy/nathelper seem to still
require users to
open UDP ports for SIP and RTP in their firewall whereas mediaproxy does not require end
users to
do anything to their firewall.
My experience has been that when using mediaproxy a STUN server isn't necessary,
although I'm have
some problems right now with sems/sipums voicemail because it is trying to send RTP media
to NATed
clients on non-routeable IP addresses.
Anyhow, when using rtpproxy with nathelper we've always had to allow specific UDP
ports on end
user firewalls.
Regards,
Paul
--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" <bruno(a)openline.com.br> wrote:
Hi there
Java Rockx wrote:
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?…
Look at the <ser-source>/modules/rtpproxy
don't you mean modules/nathelper ? :-)
and <ser-source>/modules/mediaproxy
directories.
There are README files. Personally, I'd recommend using mediaproxy because it seems
to be more
effective with handling NATed clients. There is a sample cfg file in the mediaproxy
directory.
can comment on mediaproxy, but I'm using nathelper on
SER 0.8.14 with rtpproxy (from CVS, the tar linked on
voip-info.org don't work) and example found at
and it worked at first, like a charm
in fact, it worked so well that I'm still asking myself
if I was supposed to configure anything on clients to
make it work or not (i.e. Outbound proxy or Stun server
like in grandstream phones and adapters)
if anyone can enlight me on this, I'd appreciate
Cheers
!3runo
from Brazil
P.S. rtpproxy for SER 0.8.14 can be get with
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.ser.berlios.de:/cvsroot/ser co rtpproxy
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
12:22 a.m.
Hi
Java Rockx wrote:
What I actually meant was using either rtpproxy with
nathelper **OR** using mediaproxy.
ah, ok
Anyhow, when using rtpproxy with nathelper we've
always had to allow specific UDP ports on end
user firewalls.
that's the point. I didn't and it worked! that was impressive!
I don't know if my NAT boxes are smart or not (tested with
DI514 and Linksys BEFS11W4). I just put the SIP server IP on
grandstream config and nothing else (STUN, Outbound Proxy
or NAT address are all empty)
the interesting part is that I'm having troubles ocassionaly
with proxynat support using the same telephones and NAT boxes
on FWD network. in fact, with SER, I was able to talk to FWD
from my NATed client without problems! (the other way I'm still
working with). that's the ser.cfg snippet:
#
# is it a FWD destination? (3 xxxx)
if (uri=~"^sip:3[0-9]+@") { # ... forward to gateways then;
strip(1);
rewritehostport("fwd.pulver.com:5060");
forward(uri:host, uri:port);
break;
} else {
#
# native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB
if (!lookup("location")) {
sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
break;
};
};
does any of you knows if it is possible to redirect a
ipkall.com account to a SER box? or to redirect a
non-answered FWD account to another SIP account on a
SER box?
Cheers
!3runo
15 Nov
15 Nov
2:06 p.m.
On Nov 13, 2004 at 15:09, Java Rockx <javarockx(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
What I actually meant was using either rtpproxy with
nathelper **OR** using mediaproxy.
I've had better success with mediaproxy because rtpproxy/nathelper seem to still
require users to
open UDP ports for SIP and RTP in their firewall whereas mediaproxy does not require end
users to
do anything to their firewall.
You're wrong. There is no difference from the firewall point of view
between mediaproxy and nathelper.
If one setup works with one of them it should work also with the other.
You probably misconfigured somehow nathelper, or your test setup was a
little different.
The only other possibility I can think of, is somehow the RTP ports
allocated by default by rtpproxy are blocked by your firewall and the
ones allocated by mediaproxy are not (lucky coincidence).
My experience has been that when using mediaproxy a STUN server isn't necessary,
although I'm have
some problems right now with sems/sipums voicemail because it is trying to send RTP media
to NATed
clients on non-routeable IP addresses.
Yes, STUN is not necessary, but if you can use it it has some
advantages (you get less traffic and RTP has lower delay). On the other
hand there are situations when STUN will missdetect a NAT type, or it
won't ever try to detect it (very common with some UAs). Using
nat_uac_test("19") might help catching some of these cases.
Bottom line: mediaproxy / nathelper will work in almost all cases, STUN
will not work always, you can combine the two of them.
Andrei
2:36 p.m.
Andrei,
Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments correctly you're saying
that either of
these configurations work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy
Option 2) Use mediaproxy
IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted "Option 1"
because I used nothing
more than the example ser.cfg that comes with the source distro. My results were not good
because
all client side firewalls required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the
following
UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
Grandstream ATA 486
Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
UTstarcom iAN-02EX
Sipura ATA
Cisco 7960G
Cisco ATA 186
So if my config was wrong, then does that also mean that the
<ser-src>/modules/nathelper/nathelper.cfg file is wrong? Should I have used one of
the other
example nathelper CFG files?
All I know is that as soon as I switched to mediaproxy all my NAT issues evaporated.
Now assuming that my configuration for nathelper/rtpproxy was wrong, let me as this
question;
which method provides better scalability, nathelper or mediaproxy?
Regards,
Paul
--- Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <pelinescu-onciul(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
On Nov 13, 2004 at 15:09, Java Rockx
<javarockx(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
What I actually meant was using either rtpproxy
with nathelper **OR** using mediaproxy.
I've had better success with mediaproxy because rtpproxy/nathelper seem to still
require users
to
open UDP ports for SIP and RTP in their firewall
whereas mediaproxy does not require end users
to
do anything to their firewall.
You're wrong. There is no difference from the firewall point of view
between mediaproxy and nathelper.
If one setup works with one of them it should work also with the other.
You probably misconfigured somehow nathelper, or your test setup was a
little different.
The only other possibility I can think of, is somehow the RTP ports
allocated by default by rtpproxy are blocked by your firewall and the
ones allocated by mediaproxy are not (lucky coincidence).
My experience has been that when using mediaproxy a STUN server isn't necessary,
although I'm
have
some problems right now with sems/sipums
voicemail because it is trying to send RTP media to
NATed
clients on non-routeable IP addresses.
Yes, STUN is not necessary, but if you can use it it has some
advantages (you get less traffic and RTP has lower delay). On the other
hand there are situations when STUN will missdetect a NAT type, or it
won't ever try to detect it (very common with some UAs). Using
nat_uac_test("19") might help catching some of these cases.
Bottom line: mediaproxy / nathelper will work in almost all cases, STUN
will not work always, you can combine the two of them.
Andrei
2:47 p.m.
Hello there
Java Rockx wrote:
Andrei,
Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments
correctly you're saying that either of these configurations
work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy
Option 2) Use mediaproxy
IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted
"Option 1" because I used nothing more than the example ser.cfg
that comes with the source distro.
I used the example config found at
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ser/sip_router/etc/nat…
My results were not good because all client side
firewalls
required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the
following UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
Grandstream ATA 486
Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
I also tested these two, and they passed here with
nathelper/rtpproxy
Cheers
!3runo
4 p.m.
Great. I'll try it again.
Would still like to know which is the preferred method and which method can handle a
higher load
of concurrent callers.
Regards,
Pual
--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" <bruno(a)openline.com.br> wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Hello there
Java Rockx wrote:
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ser/sip_router/etc/nat…
Andrei,
Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments
correctly you're saying that either of these configurations
work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy
Option 2) Use mediaproxy
IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted
"Option 1" because I used nothing more than the example ser.cfg
that comes with the source distro.
I used the example config found at
My results were not good because all client side
firewalls
required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the
following UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
Grandstream ATA 486
Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
I also tested these two, and they passed here with
nathelper/rtpproxy
Cheers
!3runo
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
8:10 p.m.
You can't go too wrong with either one. They are very similar. In my case,
the choice is based on the language used to implement it. One is in C and
the other one is Python. I am only familiar with one. The choice is easy, so
I can tweak it to fit my need.
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:00 AM
To: Bruno Lopes F. Cabral; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] NAT
Great. I'll try it again.
Would still like to know which is the preferred method and which method
can handle a higher load
of concurrent callers.
Regards,
Pual
--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" <bruno(a)openline.com.br> wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello there
Java Rockx wrote:
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-
bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?rev=1.1.2.1
Andrei,
Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments
correctly you're saying that either of these configurations
work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy
Option 2) Use mediaproxy
IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted
"Option 1" because I used nothing more than the example ser.cfg
that comes with the source distro.
I used the example config found at
My results were not good because all client side
firewalls
required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the
following UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
Grandstream ATA 486
Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
I also tested these two, and they passed here with
nathelper/rtpproxy
Cheers
!3runo
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7313
days inactive
7315
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Bruno Lopes F. Cabral -
Java Rockx -
Richard -
Vitor Brasileiro