4 Sep
2006
4 Sep
'06
7:02 a.m.
Just a pleasure, and thank you for posting the solution.
g-)
sip wrote:
And the solution is twofold.
1) My command to run rtpproxy was wrong for a multihomed machine.
Where I had:
./rtpproxy -f -l XX.XX.XX.XX -s udp:*:22222
It needed to be:
./rtpproxy -f -l XX.XX.XX.XX -s udp:XX.XX.XX.XX:22222
A tcpdump of both src and dst 22222 packets revealed packets heading
to one IP and returning from another.
2) Something on the firewall rules on the SER server side isn't
allowing UDP connections back to the nathelper module. I tested this
whole setup on another server just to be sure (one that is not
multihomed), and it failed as well... so I needed to open up the
firewall for udp traffic coming from the rtpproxy server (since
there's no guarantee of which port it will hit on the SER box).
Thanks, again, Greger, for helping me work through this.
N.
*
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:30:55 +0200, Greger V. Teigre wrote*
Then I would look outside ser and rtpproxy...
Routing tables,
iptables, in-between routers, turn off all interfaces except the
one
between the two servers ... BTW, did you try both localhost and the
IP on the interface in your rtpproxy_sock setting?
It looks like nathelper is receiving an answer to
another port than
it sent...
g-)
sip wrote:
Absolutely... you and I think alike there. I tried that and it worked
like a charm. The trick seems to be getting it to work on a
different server (which is a requirement). THAT'S the part that I
can't seem to get working.
>
>
N.
*
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:46:15 +0200, Greger V. Teigre wrote*
> Hm, strange. I think I would have tried to set up rtpproxy on the
same
server as ser, but use udp as communication.
g-)
sip wrote:
Identical results, I'm afraid (and it appears to be the same
version
I was using).
>
> I disabled the firewalls on both machines for testing just to be
sure there
wasn't a port somewhere I was missing. I tried using the
base config from the nathelper module src dir. Both to no avail.
>
> N.
> *
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:59:56 +0200, Greger V. Teigre wrote*
> > Hm. You get the response back.
> > Can you try the rtpproxy found in the onsip.org everything
package?
Just copy the rtpproxy code directory and don't do cvsupdate.
> > That version is verified to run with
0.9.x, so if it don't
work, we have ruled out that as a problem.
> > g-)
> >
> > sip wrote:
Doing a tcp dump on the ser server to look for the replies, I get:
14:40:02.390249 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56137: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.395230 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56138: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.461615 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56139: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.497716 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56140: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.499642 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56141: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.509856 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56142: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.520871 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56143: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.531844 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56144: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.542842 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56145: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.553835 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56146: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.564832 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56147: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.575829 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56148: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.586823 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56149: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.597823 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56150: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.608824 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56151: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.619815 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56152: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.630812 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56153: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.641807 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56154: udp 17 (DF)
14:40:02.652802 media.server.com.22222 > ser.server.com.56155: udp 17 (DF)
etc, etc.
Does that mean anything to anyone?
(incidentally, I'm running version 0.9.6 of SER and rtpproxy responds with:
Basic version: 20040107
Extension 20050322: Support for multiple RTP streams and MOH )
N.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:31:29 +0200, Greger Viken Teigre wrote
> Good description of your problem. Made me answer directly from my
> nokia e70 :-) There was a protocol change in rtpproxy and you may
> have a mismatch there. AFAIK, nathelper in cvs head uses the new
> protocol, but 0.9.x does not. Your rtpproxy announces the old
> version, but the error message looks as if the version never reaches
> ser. Do a tcpdump src port 22222 to catch the answer on your ser server.
> g-)
>
> ------- Original message -------
> From: sip <sip(a)arcdiv.com>
> Sent: 30.8.'06, 14:20
>
>
>> So... I followed the instructions on OnSip on how to set up RTPProxy.
>>
>> However, I made a modification because I'm running it on a different
>> machine... changing the
>>
>> modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock",
"unix:/var/run/rtpptoxy.sock")
>>
>> to
>>
>> modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock",
"udp:XX.XX.XX.XX:22222")
>>
>> I've run RTPproxy on the remote machine as such:
>>
>> ./rtpproxy -f -l XX.XX.XX.XX -s udp:* 22222
>>
>> And it's running.
>>
>> I start the ser server, and I see a slew of commands hit the RTPProxy console:
>>
>> received command "26742_0 V"
>> sending reply "26742_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26745_0 V"
>> sending reply "26745_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26791_0 V"
>> sending reply "26791_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26797_0 V"
>> sending reply "26797_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26748_0 V"
>> sending reply "26748_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26750_0 V"
>> sending reply "26750_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26751_0 V"
>> sending reply "26751_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26752_0 V"
>> sending reply "26752_0 20040107
>> "
>> received command "26784_0 V"
>> sending reply "26784_0 20040107
>>
>> etc, etc ad infinitum
>>
>> After a moment, the SER console spits back:
>>
>> ug 30 14:07:48 death ser[26742]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:48 death ser[26742]: WARNING: rtpp_test: can't get version of
the
>> RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:48 death ser[26742]: WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy
>> has been disabled temporarily
>> Aug 30 14:07:48 death ser[26745]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:48 death ser[26745]: WARNING: rtpp_test: can't get version of
the
>> RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:48 death ser[26745]: WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy
>> has been disabled temporarily
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26791]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26791]: WARNING: rtpp_test: can't get version of
the
>> RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26791]: WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy
>> has been disabled temporarily
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26797]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26797]: WARNING: rtpp_test: can't get version of
the
>> RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26797]: WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy
>> has been disabled temporarily
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26748]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26748]: WARNING: rtpp_test: can't get version of
the
>> RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26748]: WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy
>> has been disabled temporarily
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26750]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26751]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26752]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26784]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26789]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>> Aug 30 14:07:49 death ser[26792]: ERROR: send_rtpp_command: timeout waiting
>> reply from a RTP proxy
>>
>> etc, etc, ad infinitum
>>
>> I've done a search on this on Google and found a couple of people with the
>> same questions and NO people responding with answers.
>>
>> Any ideas what's going on?
>>
>> N.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
> >
> >