Hi list:
I am trying nathelper with rtpproxy in bridge mode , (rtpproxy
-l "61.61.61.1/192.168.5.1")
UA1----------------------SER+Nathelprt+rtpproxy+NAT----------------------UA2
192.168.5.5
192.168.5.1 /
61.61.61.1
61.61.61.2
When UA1 call UA2 or UA2 call UA1
the call can be established, and the voice can successfully be
relay to each UA
but ser shows some error message ,
ERROR: extract_body: message body has lenght zero
ERROR: force_rtp_proxy2: can't extract body from the
message
ERROR: on_reply processing failed
is this correct ??
My config file is the one that comes with the files, with the
appropiate changes:
debug=3 # debug
level (cmd line:
-dddddddddd)
#fork=no
#log_stderror=no
# (cmd line:
-E)
/* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging
mode
fork=no
log_stderror=yes
*/
check_via=no # (cmd. line:
-v)
dns=no #
(cmd. line: -r)
rev_dns=no # (cmd. line:
-R)
port=5060
children=4
fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/textops.so"
loadmodule
"/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"
modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0)
modparam("rr",
"enable_full_lr", 1)
modparam("registrar", "nat_flag",
6)
modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30
s
modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients
behind NAT
route{
# initial sanity checks --
messages with
# max_forwards==0,
or excessively long requests
if
(!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10"))
{
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many
Hops");
break;
};
if (msg:len >= max_len
)
{
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too
big");
break;
};
# !!
Nathelper
# Special handling for
NATed clients; first, NAT test is
# executed: it looks for via!=received and RFC1918
addresses
# in Contact (may fail
if line-folding is used); also,
#
the received test should, if completed, should check
all
# vias for rpesence of
received
if (nat_uac_test("3"))
{
# Allow RR-ed requests, as these may indicate
that
# a NAT-enabled proxy takes care of it; unless it
is
# a
REGISTER
if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:"))
{
log("LOG: Someone trying to register from private IP,
rewriting\n");
# This will work only for user agents that support
symmetric
# communication. We tested quite many of them and majority
is
# smart enough to be symmetric. In some phones it takes a
configuration
# option. With Cisco 7960, it is called NAT_Enable=Yes, with kphone it
is
# called "symmetric media" and "symmetric
signalling".
fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of
signalling
if (method == "INVITE")
{
fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to
SDP
};
force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost
Via
setflag(6); # Mark as
NATed
};
};
# we record-route all messages --
to make sure that
# subsequent
messages will go through our proxy;
that's
# particularly good if
upstream and downstream entities
#
use different transport protocol
if (!method=="REGISTER")
record_route();
# subsequent messages withing a
dialog should take the
# path
determined by record-routing
if
(loose_route())
{
# mark routing logic in
request
append_hf("P-hint:
rr-enforced\r\n");
route(1);
break;
};
if (!uri==myself)
{
# mark routing logic in
request
append_hf("P-hint:
outbound\r\n");
route(1);
break;
};
# if the request is for other
domain use UsrLoc
# (in case, it
does not work, use the following
command
# with proper names and
addresses in it)
if (uri==myself)
{
if (method=="REGISTER")
{
# Uncomment this if you want to use digest
authentication
#
if (!www_authorize("iptel.org", "subscriber"))
{
#
www_challenge("iptel.org",
"0");
#
break;
#
};
save("location");
break;
};
lookup("aliases");
if (!uri==myself)
{
append_hf("P-hint: outbound
alias\r\n");
route(1);
break;
};
# native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC
DB
if (!lookup("location"))
{
sl_send_reply("404", "Not
Found");
break;
};
};
append_hf("P-hint: usrloc
applied\r\n");
route(1);
}
route[1]
{
# !!
Nathelper
#if
(uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)" &&
!search("^Route:")){
# sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP
addresses");
#
break;
#};
# if client or server know to be
behind a NAT, enable relay
if
(isflagset(6))
{
force_rtp_proxy();
};
# NAT processing of replies;
apply to all transactions (for
example,
# re-INVITEs from public
to private UA are hard to identify
as
# NATed at the moment of
request processing); look at
replies
t_on_reply("1");
# send it out now; use stateful
forwarding as it works reliably
#
even for UDP2TCP
if (!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
};
}
# !! Nathelper
onreply_route[1] {
# NATed
transaction ?
if (isflagset(6) && status =~
"(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") {
fix_nated_contact();
force_rtp_proxy();
# otherwise, is it a transaction behind
a NAT and we did not
# know at time of request processing
? (RFC1918 contacts)
} else if (nat_uac_test("1"))
{
fix_nated_contact();
};
}
Is something wrong? or it is just a warning
message?
Thanks in advance
Jimmy