Hi list:

I am trying nathelper with rtpproxy in bridge mode , (rtpproxy -l "61.61.61.1/192.168.5.1")

UA1----------------------SER+Nathelprt+rtpproxy+NAT----------------------UA2 192.168.5.5 192.168.5.1 / 61.61.61.1 61.61.61.2

When UA1 call UA2 or UA2 call UA1 the call can be established, and the voice can successfully be relay to each UA

but ser shows some error message , ERROR: extract_body: message body has lenght zero ERROR: force_rtp_proxy2: can't extract body from the message ERROR: on_reply processing failed

is this correct ??

My config file is the one that comes with the files, with the appropiate changes:

debug=3 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd) #fork=no #log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E)

/* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode 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"

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" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/textops.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"

modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) 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

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 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 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==myself) {

if (method=="REGISTER") {

# Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication # if (!www_authorize("iptel.org", "subscriber")) { # www_challenge("iptel.org", "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")) { 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)) { 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(); }; }

Is something wrong? or it is just a warning message? Thanks in advance Jimmy