Hello all, I am having a bit of a problem with getting RTP Proxy to work the way I need it to with PSTN gateway calling. When I call from the PSTN gateway to the softphone it uses the rtp ptoxy both ways, from ser to the gateway and from ser to the softphone. When I call from the softphone to the PSTN how ever it only proxys from the gateway to ser and not from ser to the softphone. I have tried all sorts of things to force_rtp_proxy for both ends of the call but so far it's a no go. Any help would be great. One thing I did notice is that when I call from the PSTN to the softphone it matches a transaction and the rtp proxy works for both ends, but when calling from the softphone to the PSTN is says failed to match transaction and the rtp proxy only works for one end of the call.

Thanks in advance, Stephen # main routing logic route{ # initial sanity checks -- messages with # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); break; }; if (msg:len >= max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; }; # !! Nathelper # Special handling for NATed clients; first, NAT test is # executed: it looks for via!=received and RFC1918 addresses # in Contact (may fail if line-folding is used); also, # the received test should, if completed, should check all # vias for rpesence of received #if (nat_uac_test("3")) { # Allow RR-ed requests, as these may indicate that # a NAT-enabled proxy takes care of it; unless it is # a REGISTER if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { log("LOG: Someone trying to register from private IP, rewriting\n"); # This will work only for user agents that support symmetric # communication. We tested quite many of them and majority is # smart enough to be symmetric. In some phones it takes a configuration # option. With Cisco 7960, it is called NAT_Enable=Yes, with kphone it is # called "symmetric media" and "symmetric signalling". fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of signalling force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via setflag(6); # Mark as NATed }; #}; if (method == "INVITE") { fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP log("Arse: forcing rtpproxy in invite"); force_rtp_proxy(); log("Arse: fix_nated_sdp being run"); }; # we record-route all messages -- to make sure that # subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's # particularly good if upstream and downstream entities # use different transport protocol #if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route(); # subsequent messages withing a dialog should take the # path determined by record-routing if (loose_route()) { # mark routing logic in request append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n"); route(1); break; }; if (!uri==myself) { # mark routing logic in request append_hf("P-hint: outbound\r\n"); route(1); break; }; # if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc # (in case, it does not work, use the following command # with proper names and addresses in it) if (uri=~"202.180.83.12") { rewritehostport("sipsrv2.tranzpeer.net:5060"); }; if (uri=~"sipsrv2.tranzpeer.net") { if (method=="REGISTER") { # Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication if (!www_authorize("sipsrv2.tranzpeer.net", "subscriber")) { www_challenge("sipsrv2.tranzpeer.net", "0"); break; }; save("location"); break; }; lookup("aliases"); if (!uri==myself) { append_hf("P-hint: outbound alias\r\n"); route(1); break; }; # native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB if (!lookup("location")) { forward(202.180.125.200,5060); # sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; }; }; append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n"); route(1); } route[1] { # !! Nathelper if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)" && !search("^Route:")){ sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP addresses"); break; }; # if client or server know to be behind a NAT, enable relay if (isflagset(6)) { log("Arse: force_rtp_proxy\n"); force_rtp_proxy(); }; # NAT processing of replies; apply to all transactions (for example, # re-INVITEs from public to private UA are hard to identify as # NATed at the moment of request processing); look at replies t_on_reply("1"); # send it out now; use stateful forwarding as it works reliably # even for UDP2TCP if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; } # !! Nathelper onreply_route[1] { # NATed transaction ? if (isflagset(6) && status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") { fix_nated_contact(); force_rtp_proxy(); # otherwise, is it a transaction behind a NAT and we did not # know at time of request processing ? (RFC1918 contacts) } else if (nat_uac_test("1")) { fix_nated_contact(); }; } ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately via email and then destroy this message and any attachments. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers