16 Sep
2003
16 Sep
'03
7:05 p.m.
Is there any way to see if a SIP message is from behind nat? The example for
nathelper searches for Cisco ATA, but you could have that without nat and
you could have a different phone behind nat.
Can I always apply nat fixing? Does it break anything if it was not natted?
(My SER is not behind nat. It might make a difference if SER itself is
behind nat.)
Is there still (0.8.11) the function add_rport()? SER does not complain with
it there. Is it the same as force_rport? Does it do anything? Is it
necessary? What does it do? (I see force_rport in nathelper.cfg.)
Why would I want to add direction=active?
Am I correct that there are 2 points in a SIP message that there could be
problems from nat, 1-various SIP headers, and 2-SDP (c=, o=)?
Does fix_nated_contact fix everything in the SIP message itself and
fix_nated_sdp fix everything in SDP?
Where would I want fix_nated_contact and fix_nated_sdp? Do I want
fix_nated_contact in every message and fix_nated_sdp in INVITEs and its
responses (provisional and OK)?
Thanks.
Dovid
16 Sep
16 Sep
8 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Numbering Plan
Does Anybody knows how to implement a numbering plan with ser...?
Ivan
18 Sep
18 Sep
12:46 p.m.
Dovid wrote:
Is there any way to see if a SIP message is from
behind nat? The example for
nathelper searches for Cisco ATA, but you could have that without nat and
you could have a different phone behind nat.
Can I always apply nat fixing? Does it break anything if it was not natted?
(My SER is not behind nat. It might make a difference if SER itself is
behind nat.)
Yes, you can, but some phones will not work with such setup. This
techniquie can only be applied to UAs supporting symmetric signalling
and symmetric media, i.e. phones that always send and receive SIP and
RTP from the same port (i.e. port X for SIP and port Y for RTP). The
most prominent example of non-symmetric UA is Cisco IOS.
Is there still (0.8.11) the function add_rport()? SER
does not complain with
it there. Is it the same as force_rport? Does it do anything? Is it
necessary? What does it do? (I see force_rport in nathelper.cfg.)
No, add_rport() was removed due to the fact that force_rport() was added
into the base module.
Why would I want to add direction=active?
It might be necessary when sending session initiated by UA behind a NAT
to some device that supports connection oriented media (COMEDIA), in
which case destination device will be able to guess correct RTP settings
to allow RTP through NAT. Again, the most popular device of such kind is
Cisco IOS, therefore such feature allows to solve the problem with NAT
completely for UA->PSTN calls, when properly configured Cisco GW is used
for termination.
Am I correct that there are 2 points in a SIP message
that there could be
problems from nat, 1-various SIP headers, and 2-SDP (c=, o=)?
Does fix_nated_contact fix everything in the SIP message itself and
Yes, it does, when applied correctly (see above).
fix_nated_sdp fix everything in SDP?
Sort of. Since RTP doesn't flow through the SIP proxy, we just assume
that the NAT will not change source port for RTP and hope for good. In
some cases it works, in some does not. You can use rtpproxy to ensure
that RTP will always be able to traverse NAT, but again, it will work
only for devices supporting symmetric RTP and will introduce another hop
for RTP propagation.
Where would I want fix_nated_contact and
fix_nated_sdp? Do I want
fix_nated_contact in every message and fix_nated_sdp in INVITEs and its
responses (provisional and OK)?
Yes, that's correct. Of course you don't really need to apply
fix_nated_contact() to final negative replies.
-Maxim
Thanks.
Dovid
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7681
days inactive
7683
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dovid -
Iván Ramírez -
Maxim Sobolev