28 Sep
2004
28 Sep
'04
2:19 p.m.
Hi!
Do I have to use rtpproxy to communicate two NAT-ed UA's?
Is there any alternative way to do this?
How many simultaneous rtpproxy sessions may serve the one ordinary PC?
Grzegorz
28 Sep
28 Sep
2:36 p.m.
You could use a STUN server instead.
Neill....:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On Behalf Of
Grzegorz Kowalczyk
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:20 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] SER + rtpproxy
Hi!
Do I have to use rtpproxy to communicate two NAT-ed UA's?
Is there any alternative way to do this?
How many simultaneous rtpproxy sessions may serve the one ordinary PC?
Grzegorz
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
3:40 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] SER + rtpproxy
I found on:
www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~prelle/terena/cookbook/main/ch04s07.html
----->:
When both parties are behind two different NATs, then this approach will
not work. The reason is very simple, since both SIP user agents are behind
NAT, both of them need to send the first media packet to open pinholes in
NAT. Both of them will use the data received in SDP, but that will not
work because NATs might have changed the port number.
To solve the situation, an intermediary in the public internet will be
necessary -- an RTP proxy. The RTP proxy will receive all the media
traffic from both parties and send it to the other side. Because it will
be located in the public internet it can wait for the first media packet
from both sides and send subsequent media packets to IPs and port from
which it received the first packets.
-----<
I've tried with the stun server and without rtpproxy. The SIP signaling
was working properly but there was not voice communication between UAs.
Grzegorz
<"Neill Wilkinson" wrote>
You could use a STUN server instead.
Neill....:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf
Of
Grzegorz Kowalczyk
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:20 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] SER + rtpproxy
Hi!
Do I have to use rtpproxy to communicate two NAT-ed UA's?
Is there any alternative way to do this?
How many simultaneous rtpproxy sessions may serve the one ordinary PC?
Grzegorz
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
5:05 p.m.
Hi Grzeogorz,
It will be a good idea to read up the Network-variations chapter in the
RFC for STUN, it gives a quite good overview of when STUN can help and
when it cannot: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3489.html
I've yet to find a working solution with SER that doesnt require me to
take proxy RTP for all calls, so some advice from the gurus on how to do
this would be nice.
Cheers, Soren
I found on:
www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~prelle/terena/cookbook/main/ch04s07.html
----->:
When both parties are behind two different NATs, then this approach will
not work. The reason is very simple, since both SIP user agents are behind
NAT, both of them need to send the first media packet to open pinholes in
NAT. Both of them will use the data received in SDP, but that will not
work because NATs might have changed the port number.
To solve the situation, an intermediary in the public internet will be
necessary -- an RTP proxy. The RTP proxy will receive all the media
traffic from both parties and send it to the other side. Because it will
be located in the public internet it can wait for the first media packet
from both sides and send subsequent media packets to IPs and port from
which it received the first packets.
-----<
I've tried with the stun server and without rtpproxy. The SIP signaling
was working properly but there was not voice communication between UAs.
Grzegorz
<"Neill Wilkinson" wrote>
--
Soren Davidsen,
Univ: AUE department of computer science, room H302, +45-20676081
Home: http://tanesha.net/, +45-36947805 or +1-3602266324
Ring billigt med IP-telefoni: http://musimi.dk/, http://GratisSip.dk/
You could use a STUN server instead.
Neill....:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of
Grzegorz Kowalczyk
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:20 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] SER + rtpproxy
Hi!
Do I have to use rtpproxy to communicate two NAT-ed UA's?
Is there any alternative way to do this?
How many simultaneous rtpproxy sessions may serve the one ordinary PC?
Grzegorz
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
29 Sep
29 Sep
1:24 p.m.
On Sep 28, 2004 at 17:05, Soren (Home) <soren(a)tanesha.net> wrote:
Hi Grzeogorz,
It will be a good idea to read up the Network-variations chapter in the
RFC for STUN, it gives a quite good overview of when STUN can help and
when it cannot: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3489.html
I've yet to find a working solution with SER that doesnt require me to
take proxy RTP for all calls, so some advice from the gurus on how to do
this would be nice.
Just use nat_uac_test("<flags>") and use rtpproxy only when it returns
true (see modules/nathelper/README for nat_uac_test doc).
Andrei
7156
days inactive
7157
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Grzegorz Kowalczyk -
Neill Wilkinson -
Soren (Home)