Message

To me, the registration looks ok (fix_nated_register will not change contact as this is not allowed according to the RFC, but the received parameter is there).

However, it looks like the record is not found by lookup("location"). I have a suspicion that maybe is_uri_host_local() does not match and ser tries to relay directly to route 1. You should make sure that all ips and domains that you want your ser to handle can be found in the domain table. Refer to the document for how.

----- Original Message -----

From: Olivier Taylor

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 03:35 PM

Subject: RE : [Serusers] mediaproxy and private ip

here is the result for a call from the pstn to our server :(

same issue for internal calls

U 213.246.57.33:5060 -> 82.146.123.252:5060
INVITE sip:3227470340@82.146.123.252 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.246.57.33:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4c3acd89..From: "495283361" <sip:495283361@213.246.57.33>;tag=as3cefb611..To
: <sip:3227470340@82.146.123.252>..Contact: <sip:495283361@213.246.57.33>..Call-ID: 0a209c9b6676915e710b6f1415ab882f@213.246.57.33..CSeq: 102 INVITE..User-Agent: Voxbone Ca
llcontrol..Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:27:12 GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 268....v=0..o=root 10009 100
09 IN IP4 213.246.57.33..s=session..c=IN IP4 213.246.57.33..t=0 0..m=audio 19414 RTP/AVP 18 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rt
pmap:101 telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - - -..
#
U 82.146.123.252:5060 -> 213.246.57.33:5060
SIP/2.0 479 We don't forward to private IP addresses..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.246.57.33:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4c3acd89..From: "495283361" <sip:495283361@213.246.57.33>;tag=as3cef
b611..To: <sip:3227470340@82.146.123.252>;tag=59f1565d6938a98ef3fc4707bf9b43aa.d7ae..Call-ID: 0a209c9b6676915e710b6f1415ab882f@213.246.57.33..CSeq: 102 INVITE..Server: Sip
EXpress router (0.9.4 (i386/freebsd))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 82.146.123.252:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=22903 req_src_ip=213.246.57.33 req_src_port=5060 in_u
ri=sip:3227470340@82.146.123.252 out_uri=sip:3227470340@192.168.2.100:5060 via_cnt==1"....
#

Serctl gives private adresses also

~~~Contact(0x284db960)~~~
domain    : 'location'
aor       : '3227470340'
Contact   : 'sip:3227470340@192.168.2.101:6937'
Expires   : 2939
q         :
Call-ID   : '8a6ef9438a7e3642'
CSeq      : 2
User-Agent: 'eyeBeam release 3007n stamp 17816'
received : 'sip:81.247.160.151:6937'
State     : CS_SYNC
Flags     : 1
next      : 0x284de468
prev      : 0x284db3b0

:-) Thanks, now I understand. See inline.

Thanks for answering ;)

Using ser.cfg from onsip.org version 5.

When Uas register to ser, they are register with their privates IPs (192.168.xxx.xxx), not with the public Ip of the natted network.

So serctl ul show will show the private address for the UA? If so, for some reason the client_nat_test does not detect the NATed client, an ngrep of the registration will help.

Making a call requires proxy authentification but ser WWW-Challenge never arrives to UA(wrong adress).

The challenge is not sent to the registered address, but rather to the originator of the request. An ngrep trace of the INVITE will again help. The challenge response will normally be sent to the source ip and port, not the contact (which BTW also should be fixed by calling fix_nated_contact())

In tha cfg, I have :

if (method=="INVITE" && client_nat_test("7")) {
  # INSERT YOUR IP ADDRESS HERE
  record_route_preset("82.146.xxx.xxx:5060;nat=yes");
} else if (method!="REGISTER") {
  record_route();
};
and also :

if (!search("^Contact:[ ]*\*") && client_nat_test("7")) {
  setflag(6);
  fix_nated_register();
  force_rport();
};

if (!www_authorize("finalcut.be","subscriber")) {
www_challenge("finalcut.be","0");
break;
};

You complained about no one answering your questions. An advise: When writing a question, please state clearly what you want to accomplish, what the problem is, and as much information about the problem as possible.

I have rechecked some of your recent posts, they are all in telegraph language, and I find it very hard to understand what your question really is.

To be honest, the below question really makes no sense to me.

----- Original Message -----

From: Olivier Taylor

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 01:44 PM

Subject: [Serusers] mediaproxy and private ip

Using the last cfg from onsip.org, i just see that now Uas are registered with their private Ip when using mediaproxy.

Mediaproxy seems the best solution for scalability, that's why I want to test it.