hmmm. i replaced the INVITE in my original config with the one you supplied and SER started fine: ----- Feb 1 18:12:52 localhost ser: Listening on Feb 1 18:12:52 localhost ser: 127.0.0.1 [127.0.0.1]:5060 Feb 1 18:12:52 localhost ser: my.public.ip [my.public.ip]:5060 Feb 1 18:12:52 localhost ser: Aliases: localhost.localdomain:5060 localhost:5060 my.public.box:* Feb 1 18:12:52 localhost ser: ser startup succeeded ----- clients register and get a "200 o.k." response. i just realized that i left out the send and receive message that i get when i try to call a client on the same lan segment - my.public.ip is the ip address of the my.public.box on which ser is running: ----- SEND >> my.public.ip:5060 INVITE sip:456@my.public.box SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.100:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK63D6D07A552611D8908A000393B930BA From: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box>;tag=748430901 To: <sip:456@my.public.box> Contact: <sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060> Call-ID: 61C9E3CB-5526-11D8-908A-000393B930BA(a)192.168.1.100 CSeq: 59170 INVITE Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1101 Content-Length: 296 v=0 o=123 584059347 584059347 IN IP4 192.168.1.100 s=X-Lite c=IN IP4 192.168.1.100 t=0 0 m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 0 8 3 98 97 101 a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000 a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000 a=rtpmap:3 gsm/8000 a=rtpmap:98 iLBC/8000 a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 a=fmtp:101 0-15 RECEIVE << my.public.ip:5060 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.100:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK63D6D07A552611D8908A000393B930BA;received=my.router.public.ip From: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box>;tag=748430901 To: <sip:456@my.public.box> Call-ID: 61C9E3CB-5526-11D8-908A-000393B930BA(a)192.168.1.100 CSeq: 59170 INVITE Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.12 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0 Warning: 392 my.public.ip:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=16985 req_src_ip=my.router.public.ip req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:456@my.public.box out_uri=sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060 via_cnt==1" ---- the rtpmap messages are new, so i guess that's progress. that said, should i ditch the released version and wade through the config errors that i get when i compile the CVS head? is there anything glaringly obviously wrong with my current setup? thanks, - eric Andres wrote: _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

My mistake then. In any case you must complete 2 things. You must first set the flag...or else that part of the code does not get executed. For example: if (search("User-Agent: Cisco ATA.*")) { setflag(1); # remember this is ATA force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); }; and your on_reply must look something like this: onreply_route[1] { if ((status=~"[12][0-9][0-9]")) fix_nated_contact(); force_rtp_proxy(); } It should work after that. Eric C. Snowdeal III wrote:

Eric, I think you should just try out the example RTP config in the nathelper directory. It is this one: # main routing logic route{ # compulsory processing of Route header fields and adding RR loose_route(); # ATA's are symmetric but don't advertise it -- force use of rport if (search("User-Agent: Cisco ATA.*")) { setflag(1); # remember this is ATA force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); }; /* registration (uses rewritten contacts) */ if (method=="REGISTER") { save("location"); break; }; if (method=="INVITE") { record_route(); if (isflagset(1)) { # ATA ? force_rtp_proxy(); }; /* set up reply processing */ t_on_reply("1"); }; if (method == "INVITE" || method == "CANCEL") { if (!lookup("location")) { sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; }; }; /* set up reply processing and forward statefuly */ t_relay(); } # all incoming replies for t_onrepli-ed transactions enter here onreply_route[1] { if (status=~"2[0-9][0-9]" && search("Server: Cisco ATA.*")) fix_nated_contact(); force_rtp_proxy(); }

Eric C. Snowdeal III wrote: There is no way this config can pass thru here since the flag is never set. If you are not interested in discriminating then remove the isflagset check and just do force_rtp_proxy for every INVITE: > if (isflagset(1)) { # ATA ? > force_rtp_proxy(); > }; > /* set up reply processing */ > t_on_reply("1"); > }; >

I would like to know if force_rtp_proxy() is necessary when (UA behind NAT) is calling a (UA not behind NAT). I have no problem calling (ATA186 - Real IP) to (Grandstream behind NAT) However (Grandstream behind NAT) to (ATA186 - Real IP) ATA can hear but GrandStream cannot hear. NAT router is Vigor 2600 - known to be symetric. Also I am using Flag 6 to indicate behind NAT however when I look in the mysql db flags field shows a 1 and not a 6 is this as it should be? My ser.cfg is below. Thanks, Dinesh fork=yes log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E) check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v) dns=no # (cmd. line: -r) rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R) port=5060 children=4 fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo" # ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so" # Uncomment this if you want digest authentication # mysql.so must be loaded ! #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- # -- usrloc params -- #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database # for persistent storage and comment the previous line # No Cache #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 1) # With Cache modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) # -- auth params -- # Uncomment if you are using auth module # #modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) # # If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which true in this config), # uncomment also the following parameter) # #modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") # -- rr params -- # add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) # Nathelper modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients behind NAT # ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- # 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("2")) { # 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"); fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of signalling if (method == "INVITE") { fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP }; force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via setflag(6); # Mark as NATed }; }; # 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 (uri==myself) { if (method=="INVITE") { record_route(); if (isflagset(6)) { force_rtp_proxy(); }; }; if (method=="REGISTER") { 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")) { sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; }; }; append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n"); route(1); } route[1] { # send it out now; use stateful forwarding as it works reliably # even for UDP2TCP if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; } 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(); }; } _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

I am using Flag 6 to indicate behind NAT however when I look in the mysql - ser -location - flags field shows a 1 in that column and not a 6 is this as it should be? My ser.cfg is below. Thanks, Dinesh fork=yes log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E) check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v) dns=no # (cmd. line: -r) rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R) port=5060 children=4 fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo" # ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so" # Uncomment this if you want digest authentication # mysql.so must be loaded ! #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- # -- usrloc params -- #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database # for persistent storage and comment the previous line # No Cache #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 1) # With Cache modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) # -- auth params -- # Uncomment if you are using auth module # #modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) # # If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which true in this config), # uncomment also the following parameter) # #modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") # -- rr params -- # add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) # Nathelper modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients behind NAT # ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- # 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("2")) { # 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"); fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of signalling if (method == "INVITE") { fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP }; force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via setflag(6); # Mark as NATed }; }; # 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 (uri==myself) { if (method=="INVITE") { record_route(); if (isflagset(6)) { force_rtp_proxy(); }; }; if (method=="REGISTER") { 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")) { sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; }; }; append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n"); route(1); } route[1] { # send it out now; use stateful forwarding as it works reliably # even for UDP2TCP if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; } 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(); }; } _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

My familarity with linux is rather short and for the most part limited to my experence with SER. So Forgive me if this sounds like a sill question When the log statement is excuted in SER.CFG Where does it write this information to? A file or a system log ??? log("LOG: Someone trying to register from private IP, rewriting\n"); Thanks, Dinesh _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Is there any way using serctl or querying the ser database on mysql to determine what flags were or were not for a Registered UA I am using nat_uac_test("2") to only select UAs that have not already been set up for DMZ or Port forwarding. I want to verify that only the UAs without Port Forwarding or DMZ are having Flag(6) set. if (nat_uac_test("2")) { if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of signalling if (method == "INVITE") { fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP }; force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via setflag(6); # Mark as NATed }; }; _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

For a REGISTER will the below be true if the UA that is registering has a 5 in the 4th digit ie 1115999 true 1114999 false if (uri=~"[0-9][0-9][0-9]5") I saw some where in the docs that "User name is optional (it is for example never included in REGISTER requests)"

Is there any varible that I can test during a Register that contains the registering partys id. Thanks, dinesh -----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Nils Ohlmeier Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:34 AM To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Cc: Dinesh Subject: Re: [Serusers] log On Wednesday 04 February 2004 13:53, Dinesh wrote: has No it will not because REGISTER do not contain the username in the uri. In a REGISTER is only the server address. Nils _______________________________________________ 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

For a REGISTER will the below be true if the UA that is registering has a 5 in the 4th digit ie 1115999 true 1114999 false if (uri=~"[0-9][0-9][0-9]5") I saw some where in the docs that "User name is optional (it is for example never included in REGISTER requests)" Thanks, Dinesh _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

So you have to configure each user if he is allowed to use rtpproxy or not? And what is if the user is mobile - some times behind NAT, some times not? regards, Klaus Andres wrote:

Just for curiosity - how do your customers call another customer if they are registerd at serveral proxies - do you use the replicate() feature, a special dial plan, a non caching ser or any other method? regards, Klaus

Andres wrote:

Dinesh wrote: > For a REGISTER will the below be true if the UA that is registering

So I take you are simply trying to centrally manage whether a user is

be foced through the RTPProxy or not. Seems your are trying to do

with a numbering scheme which is quite cumbersom. We are testing a

flexible approach based on acl groups. We simply defined a new acl group called "rtp_proxy". On a request like REGISTER or INVITE, Ser will check if either the "From" or "To" usernames belong to the group and apply the RTPProxy. Something like: # Check if caller is on the rtp_proxy group if (is_user_in("From", "rtp_proxy")) { setflag(2); force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); exec_msg("echo `date` - Caller is in rtp_proxy group - From: $SIP_HF_FROM To: $SIP_HF_TO Contact: $SIP_HF_CONTACT >> /var/log/ser/rtp_proxy.log"); }; # Check if called user is on the rtp_proxy group if ((is_user_in("To", "rtp_proxy")) & !(isflagset(2)) { setflag(2); force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); exec_msg("echo `date` - Called User is in rtp_proxy

- From: $SIP_HF_FROM To: $SIP_HF_TO Contact: $SIP_HF_CONTACT >> /var/log/ser/rtp_proxy.log"); }; . . . if (method=="INVITE") { if (isflagset(2)) { # rtp_proxy group ? force_rtp_proxy(); }; # /* set up reply processing */ t_on_reply("1"); };

I am using nat_uac_test("2") to only select UAs behind NAT that may

NAThelper assistance. However I find that natt_uac_test("2") is also giving a positive on

ATA's that we have setup with port forwarding or DMZ. These ATA have also been set to determine the external IP of the routers they are on using VIA - They function without the nathelper module. These UA do not need any help from NAT helper but because they are flaged they are pinged to keeps ports alive and they are forced

the RTPProxy. Any Ideas. We know in advance which UA are setup with Port Forwarding/DMZ. Can a flag be set in the subscriber table which is

tested at the time of Registration if so, how? if (nat_uac_test("2")) { if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of signalling if (method == "INVITE") { fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP }; force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via setflag(6); # Mark as NATed }; }; Thanks, Dinesh _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

If the UAs are sitting behind the same NAT then the nathelper module may help you (but that is not the intention of the module). But you should give up the idea to use the external RTP proxy IMHO. It simply does not make much sence to route the traffic of the two UAs through the internet when the can talk to each other directly in the same LAN (i mean only the RTP part not the signaling part). Regards Nils On Monday 02 February 2004 02:44, Eric C. Snowdeal III wrote: >i've been getting my sea legs with SER and am having trouble getting >rtpproxy to nathelper to work correctly with my setup. since everything >works fine if i test the scenario with a freeworld dialup account, i'm >assuming that my problems are solely due to the vastness of my ignorance >on how to configure SER correctly. > >i have three x-lite clients [ one is running on windows 2000 not sure of >the build number, but it's the latest download from the website; the >other two clients are both build 1101 on mac 10.2.3. SER running on a >rh9 box on a public IP with rtpproxy. i installed ser-0.8.12-0.i386.rpm >which i downloaded from the ftp server. the x-lite clients are sitting >behind a linksys befw11s4 nat router. > >i can run SER without nathelper/rtpproxy and make and receive calls to >clients outside the my network. however, things fall apart quickly when >i try to run more than one client behind the nat [ lost audio, timeouts >etc] which i presume is what nathelper is supposed to deal with. if try >to run to use nathelper, i can't make a call from a one client to >another client behind the lan. the calls won't go through - they simply >timeout. > >i downloaded and compiled rtpproxy which i obtained from the portaone >website and simply started it from the command line. i can't figure out >how to get any debugging messages from rtpproxy, but i can see that the >process exists and /var/run/rtpproxy.sock is created. > >i altered ser.cfg using the template i found in the ser-0.8.12_src >tarball [ /modules/nathelper/nathelper.cfg ]. see my config below [1]. > i understand that things have changed quite a bit in the CVS head, but >i tried to compile and install the latest CVS version, but i ran into a >host of config errors using the nathelper.cfg supplied, so i decided to >backtrack, gather my wits, and stick with the released version. > >the x-lite clients appear to register appropriately with the server [2 - >public ip addresses have been changed to protect the innocent]. to my >untrained eye, these messages look the same as what i see when i test >things using freeworld dialup accounts and i can make a call to another >client on the same lan segment - i.e. the internal IP addresses are >being sent. the location database also shows that the internal IP >addresses are being used [3], but i don't know if this is what i want or >not. oh. i'm also using my.public.box - a FQDN - as in the x-lite >fields where it asks for "Domain/Realm", "SIP Proxy" and "Out Bound Proxy". > >so anyone care to grab me by the lapels and point out what i'm obviously >doing wrong :-) > > >[1] ># ># $Id: ser.cfg,v 1.21.4.1 2003/11/10 15:35:15 andrei Exp $ ># ># simple quick-start config script ># > ># ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------ > >#debug=3 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd) >#fork=yes >#log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E) > >/* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode >debug=7 >fork=no >log_stderror=yes >*/ > >check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v) >dns=no # (cmd. line: -r) >rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R) >#port=5060 >#children=4 >fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo" > ># ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- > ># Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database >#loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" > >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" > >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" >loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" > ># Uncomment this if you want digest authentication ># mysql.so must be loaded ! >#loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" >#loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" > ># ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- > ># -- usrloc params -- > >modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) > ># Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database ># for persistent storage and comment the previous line >#modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) > ># -- auth params -- ># Uncomment if you are using auth module ># >#modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) ># ># If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which true in this config), ># uncomment also the following parameter) ># >#modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") > ># -- rr params -- ># add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy >modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) > >alias="my.public.box" > ># ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- > ># 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; > }; > > > # compulsory processing of Route header fields and adding RR > loose_route(); > > /* registration (uses rewritten contacts) */ > if (method=="REGISTER") { > save("location"); > break; > }; > > if (method=="INVITE") { > record_route(); > if (isflagset(1)) { # ATA ? > fix_nated_sdp("3"); > }; > /* set up reply processing */ > t_on_reply("1"); > }; > > if (method == "INVITE" || method == "CANCEL") { > if (!lookup("location")) { > sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); > break; > }; > }; > > /* set up reply processing and forward statefuly */ > t_relay(); >} > ># all incoming replies for t_onrepli-ed transactions enter here >onreply_route[1] { > if (status=~"2[0-9][0-9]") > fix_nated_contact(); > fix_nated_sdp("3"); >} > >[2] > >Established SIP protocol listen on: 192.168.1.100:5060 > >Discovered Restricted Cone NAT Firewall > >SIP: 192.168.1.100:5060 >RTP: 192.168.1.100:8000 >NAT: my.router.public.ip > >PROXY#0: ser.public.ip:5060 > >OUTBOUND-PROXY#0: ser.public.ip:5060 > > >SEND >> ser.public.ip:5060 >REGISTER sip:my.public.box SIP/2.0 >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >192.168.1.100:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK9DF27D98551C11D882E3000393B930BA >From: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box> >To: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box> >Contact: "snowdeal" <sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060> >Call-ID: 9DA51D06551C11D882E3000393B930BA(a)my.public.box >CSeq: 56648 REGISTER >Expires: 1800 >Max-Forwards: 70 >User-Agent: X-Lite build 1101 >Content-Length: 0 > > >RECEIVE << ser.public.ip:5060 >SIP/2.0 200 OK >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >192.168.1.100:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK9DF27D98551C11D882E3000393B930B >A;received=my.router.public.ip From: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box> >To: snowdeal ><sip:123@my.public.box>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.3894 >Call-ID: 9DA51D06551C11D882E3000393B930BA(a)my.public.box >CSeq: 56648 REGISTER >Contact: <sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060>;q=0.00;expires=1800 >Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.12 (i386/linux)) >Content-Length: 0 >Warning: 392 ser.public.ip:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=21653 >req_src_ip=my.router.public.ip req_src_port=5060 >in_uri=sip:my.public.box out_uri=sip:my.public.box via_cnt==1" > > >---------- > > >Established SIP protocol listen on: 192.168.1.101:5060 > >Discovered Restricted Cone NAT Firewall > >SIP: 192.168.1.101:5060 >RTP: 192.168.1.101:8000 >NAT: my.router.public.ip > >PROXY#0: 69.55.224.151:5060 > >OUTBOUND-PROXY#0: 69.55.224.151:5060 > > >SEND >> ser.public.ip:5060 >REGISTER sip:my.public.box SIP/2.0 >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >192.168.1.101:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKAC7BFFFD551C11D8B317000A957BC13A >From: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box> >To: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box> >Contact: "kristine" <sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060> >Call-ID: AC7B8E18551C11D8B317000A957BC13A(a)my.public.box >CSeq: 55034 REGISTER >Expires: 1800 >Max-Forwards: 70 >User-Agent: X-Lite build 1101 >Content-Length: 0 > > >RECEIVE << ser.public.ip:5060 >SIP/2.0 200 OK >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >192.168.1.101:5060;rport=15060;branch=z9hG4bKAC7BFFFD551C11D8B317000A957BC1 >3A;received=my.router.public.ip From: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box> >To: kristine ><sip:456@my.public.box>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.b0ef >Call-ID: AC7B8E18551C11D8B317000A957BC13A(a)my.public.box >CSeq: 55034 REGISTER >Contact: <sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060>;q=0.00;expires=1800 >Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.12 (i386/linux)) >Content-Length: 0 >Warning: 392 ser.public.ip:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=21658 >req_src_ip=my.router.public.ip req_src_port=15060 >in_uri=sip:my.public.box out_uri=sip:my.public.box via_cnt==1 > >[3] > >===Domain list=== >---Domain--- >name : 'location' >size : 512 >table: 0x402d60d8 >d_ll { > n : 2 > first: 0x402d80e0 > last : 0x402d81c8 >} > >...Record(0x402d80e0)... >domain: 'location' >aor : '123' >~~~Contact(0x402d8120)~~~ >domain : 'location' >aor : '123' >Contact: 'sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060' >Expires: 583 >q : 0.00 >Call-ID: &#39;9DA51D06551C11D882E3000393B930BA(a)my.public.box&#39; >CSeq : 56648 >replic : 0 >State : CS_NEW >Flags : 0 >next : (nil) >prev : (nil) >~~~/Contact~~~~ >.../Record... >...Record(0x402d81c8)... >domain: 'location' >aor : '456' >~~~Contact(0x402d8208)~~~ >domain : 'location' >aor : '456' >Contact: 'sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060' >Expires: 614 >q : 0.00 >Call-ID: &#39;AC7B8E18551C11D8B317000A957BC13A(a)my.public.box&#39; >CSeq : 55034 >replic : 0 >State : CS_NEW >Flags : 0 >next : (nil) >prev : (nil) >~~~/Contact~~~~ >.../Record... > >---/Domain--- >===/Domain list=== > >_______________________________________________ >Serusers mailing list &gt;serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Hi Nils! How will you detect that both clients are behind the same NAT? You could check, if the requests come from the same IP address (the IP address of the NAT-box), but what if there some more NATs behind the first NAT-box? klaus Nils Ohlmeier wrote: _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

I have upgraded from 0.8.11 to 12. Ser is running happily (I can make calls) however when I do serctl moni I get don't get any cycle increment. Also serctl ps and serctl ul show give me nothing. Any ideas? _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers