RE: [Serusers] Rewriting URI in the Contact field

Howdy, I have a ATA186. I may have misunderstood the COMEDIA reference. Does the ATA186 poke itself through a NAT

server???

NAT seems to be the biggest hurdle we have. ----greg > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@FreeBSD.org] > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:58 AM > To: Greg Fausak > Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; kapitan(a)portaone.com > Subject: Re: [Serusers] Rewriting URI in the Contact field > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:27:46AM -0600, Greg Fausak wrote: > > What is this device? Where can I get one? What does it cost? > > Cisco ata186 is two-port analog telephone adapter, i.e. it has two > standard ports for connecting ordinary phones and one 10M ethernet > port. It supports SIP and H323 (G711, G723 and G729 audio codecs) > and costs some US$150. > > -Maxim > > > > > Thanks :-) > > > > ---greg > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org > > > [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Sobolev > > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:15 AM > > > To: Jiri Kuthan > > > Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; kapitan(a)portaone.com > > > Subject: Re: [Serusers] Rewriting URI in the Contact field > > > > > > > > > Yes, I know - we have studied all those methods in

> > > method of choice is symmetric signalling/symmetric media > (aka COMEDIA) > > > due to the following reasons: > > > > > > 1. Things should work without modifying or

> > > user's infrastructure (NATs) and should be compatible with all > > > widely-used NATs. > > > > > > 2. We are bound to ata186 as UA. It is compatible with > this method. > > > Support for other UAs isn't required. > > > > > > 3. The calls will be terminated to Cisco GWs, while > COMEDIA support > > > was recently added into Cisco IOS, so that

> > > thing we need is to add received/rport support into > proxy/registrar > > > and update IOS at termination points. > > > > > > 4. No media relay is allowed, because this will

> > > bandwith load in a single point. > > > > > > 5. COMEDIA support is likely to become part of the > standard, so that > > > our investments into development are protected. > > > > > > -Maxim > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 02:26:07PM +0100, Jiri Kuthan wrote: > > > > There is actually a plenty of options how to traverse NATs. > > > > Sadly, none of them works in all possible scenarios. > > > > > > > > a) STUN -- some phones (kphone for linux, snom hardphones) > > > > have the ability to "fool" NATs to accomplish traversal > > > > using the STUN protocols; particularly good if you cannot > > > > manipulate the NAT > > > > b) geek tweaks -- you have a configurable NAT and

> > > > phones (there are some of both of them). you > configure static > > > > port forwarding in the NAT and phones to advertise the > > > > public address in contacts and elsewhere > > > > c) ALG -- use a SIP-aware NAT such as PIX or Intertex > > > > d) UPnP -- takes UPnP enables phones (snom is) and NATs > > > > e) SIP/media relay -- that's a too ugly story > > > > > > > > What to choose best depends on your network setting

> > > > tweak the NAT, can you afford replacing it with a

> > > > one, are the phones you are using configurable or

> > > > STUN, do you have a server on the public or private NAT side > > > > or on each of them, etc. > > > > > > > > I remember someone shared with us he was using ser in his > > > > network to do the translation of SIP addresses on behalf > > > > ot the phones. The ser script was configured to statically > > > > rewrite private IP addresses to the public address using > > > > replace/textops. > > > > > > > > -Jiri > > > > > > > > At 01:32 PM 1/10/2003, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > >Folks, > > > > > > > > > >I need an advise on how to better implement one feature, > > > which isn't > > > > >currently present in SER. We need to allow UAs behind > NAT properly > > > > >register with the registrar - by "properly" I mean that > > > host:port portion > > > > >of URI in Contact field should not be used, but host:port > > > the request > > > > >came from should be used instead. By definition we know > > > that those UAs > > > > >will support symmetric SIP signalling, so that this scheme > > > will work just > > > > >fine. > > > > > > > > > >In my opinion there are two ways to do it: either add new > > > rewritecontact* > > > > >family of functions similar to rewritehost ones. or add a > > > new flag for > > > > >the save() function. This is where I need your help - > > > which implementation > > > > >looks better for you (or maybe you have even some better > > > idea), since > > > > >we are really interested in inclusion of our changes into > > > the mainline to > > > > >reduce our local hacks. > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > > > > >Maxim > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >Serusers mailing list > > > > >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > > > >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Serusers mailing list > > > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > >