Sorry, but for security reasons I don't read other people's dumps. You just need to check whether the m= line refers to your rtpproxy's public IP and not the private. And of course that rtpproxy and nathelper communicate with eachother... g-)
harry gaillac wrote:
I've built rtpproxy with -i option :
root 14362 1 0 16:39 ? 00:00:00 /usr/local/bin/rtpproxy -l 192.168.0.1 -i 80.119.11.112
However I can't send or receive invite from/to user agent . look at invitation file (ethereal)! Should I configure phone per port ? What's wrong ?
Harry
--- "Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com a écrit :
The patch was current for rtpproxy from repository at that point. I sent the patch to Maxim and asked if it could be included in CVS, but I never heard from him. If you add the patch by hand, you should be able to make rtpproxy announce the public IP in the INVITEs and OKs (instead of rtpproxy's private/interface address). g-)
harry gaillac wrote:
I tried to patch main.c without success according
to
main.c.rej but i try to add -i by hand.
I failed to patch main.c .
If I add -i options to rtpproxy will it solve
problem
of signaling behind nat (on same box) ?
Harry
--- "Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com a écrit
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2005-January/014688.html
harry gaillac wrote:
Where can I get your patch ?
Harry --- "Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com a
écrit
> Running rtpproxy on a NATed box is a problem
(you
> need a patch I posted a > while back to announce the correct public IP). > Running all daemons on the > same server with a public IP is NOT a problem. > g-) > harry gaillac wrote: >> Hello, >> >> SER+nathelper+rtpproxy run on the same box that nat. >> Is it a problem ? >> >> Harry >> >> >> --- "Greger V. Teigre" greger@teigre.com a
écrit
>> >> >>> That's strange. We are using some Polycom 300
and
>>> they work ok. No STUN >>> support and sometimes a very erratic
registration
>>> pattern, but except from >>> that, they seem to perform ok. They
interoperate
>>> with sipuras, >>> grandstreams, sjphone, cisco gw, xlite, etc. >>> g-) >>> >>> Juha Heinanen wrote: >>>> harry, >>>> >>>> we tried polycom video phones a month or so
ago and their sip
>>>> implementation was worst i had seen so far.
the phones didn't
>>>> support digest authentication and we were also hit the >>>> problem you mentioned with domain in request-uri. i suggest >>>> to junk those phones before their sip implementation is >>>> closer to
rfc3261.
>>>> >>>> -- juha >>>> >>>>
>>>> Serusers mailing list >>>> serusers@lists.iptel.org >>>>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage >> pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! Créez votre Yahoo!
Mail sur
>> http://fr.mail.yahoo.com > >
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace
de stockage pour vos
mails, photos et vidéos ! Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace
de stockage pour vos
mails, photos et vidéos ! Créez votre Yahoo! Mail
sur
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com