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:
<mailto:0a209c9b6676915e710b6f1415ab882f@213.246.57.33..CSeq>
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..C
all-ID: <mailto:0a209c9b6676915e710b6f1415ab882f@213.246.57.33..CSeq>
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
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 6 octobre 2005 14:39
À : Olivier Taylor; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] mediaproxy and private ip
:-) Thanks, now I understand. See inline.
ok,
Thanks for answering ;)
I will reformulate
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).
Register works, even with authentification.
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())
g-)
Any idea
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;
};
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 6 octobre 2005 14:10
À : Olivier Taylor; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] mediaproxy and private ip
Olivier,
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.
g-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Olivier Taylor <mailto:olivier.taylor@gmail.com>
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
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.
Any Idea?
_____
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers