I had a look at your ngrep output. What confused me is this part -
"U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060 REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201"
Note that 213.219.137.148:50198 - what does that port number 50198 signify (although the first line says its going from 5060 to 5060)? Can you show the ngrep when you use port 5070?
Dhiraj
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On Behalf Of Bart Van Daal Sent: 19 July 2004 14:36 To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
No,
it's a standard ADSL router. I've reset the router to it's default settings so it only does NAT, without DMZ, without any port being forwarded. I've tried again with port 5060 -> same problem Tried with port 5070 -> everything works fine..
just out of curiousity, is there a logical explanation for this?
thanks, Bart
-----Original Message----- From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com] Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 14:13 To: B.Vandaal@edpnet.net; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it.
Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your NAT gateway for port 5060.
Dhiraj
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On Behalf Of Bart Van Daal Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05 To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
Great!!
this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical explanation for this?
thanks again Mike, Bart
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48 To: Bart Van Daal Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
Hello Bart,
Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote:
BVD> Hi Mike,
BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip.. BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the router, so I BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it doesn't know BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but that still BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further.
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56 To: Bart Van Daal Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
Hello Bart,
Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from
SER, that's
why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest. Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148?
Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline
port 5060
)
-- Best regards,
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
19.07.2004 ICQ# 57698805MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
One thing... some routers think that they are very smart
:), so try to
change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like: port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it.
-- Best regards,
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
19.07.2004 ICQ# 57698805MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
dhiraj.2.bhuyan＠bt.com