May l ask for your help with the CVS. When I goto the CVS it indicates that the file rtpproxy.c is ver 1.4 and is 2 weeks old.
Pls tell me how to get yesterdays commit.
If it is not a bother, I would appreciate it if you could email it to me.
Thanks Dinesh
-----Original Message----- From: "Andres"andres@telesip.net Snt: 01-Feb-04 11:20:05 AM To: "Maxim Sobolev"sobomax@portaone.com Cc: "serusers@lists.iptel.org"serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Yes, indeed, there was a problem with force_rtp_proxy(). I've just > committed a fix (1.38). The problem was that you were trying to use > results of one call to ip_addr2a() after another call to that > function. Since ip_addr2a() returns pointer to a static internal > buffer, it was leading to incorrect results. > > -Maxim > > Thank you Maxim! It is working properly now with today's nathelper version on CVS.
-- Andres Network Admin http://www.telesip.net
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serus??ers
Dinesh wrote:
May l ask for your help with the CVS. When I goto the CVS it indicates that the file rtpproxy.c is ver 1.4 and is 2 weeks old.
Pls tell me how to get yesterdays commit.
The problem was not the rtpproxy, but rather nathelper. Just grab the nathelper module from CVS and thats it.
If it is not a bother, I would appreciate it if you could email it to me.
Thanks Dinesh
-----Original Message----- From: "Andres"andres@telesip.net Snt: 01-Feb-04 11:20:05 AM To: "Maxim Sobolev"sobomax@portaone.com Cc: "serusers@lists.iptel.org"serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Yes, indeed, there was a problem with force_rtp_proxy(). I've just committed a fix (1.38). The problem was that you were trying to use results of one call to ip_addr2a() after another call to that function. Since ip_addr2a() returns pointer to a static internal buffer, it was leading to incorrect results.
-Maxim
Thank you Maxim! It is working properly now with today's nathelper version on CVS.
-- Andres Network Admin http://www.telesip.net
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serus??ers
As use of the RTPproxy consumes bandwidth on the SER/RTPproxy machines interface we would like to avoid it's use as much as possible. It appears that nat_uac_test detects our UA that are configed with port forwarding or DMZ as being behind NAT there by setting flag 6 and indicating the use of the proxy. As these do not actually need the use of the rtpproxy I want to force the use of the rtpproxy only when the calling party or the called party has a 5 in the 4 digit of the phone number eg 222522 or 123588 I have a clue on how to achive this when the called party has a 5 in the 4 digit by testing the uri but how would I test for the calling party.
A code snippet would be highly appreciated.
Regards, Dinesh
Dinesh wrote:
As use of the RTPproxy consumes bandwidth on the SER/RTPproxy machines interface we would like to avoid it's use as much as possible. It appears that nat_uac_test detects our UA that are configed with port forwarding or DMZ as being behind NAT there by setting flag 6 and
Maybe you can try to be a bit more selective with the "nat_uac_test". My guess is that it is testing positive for test #1(test if source address of signaling is different from address advertised in Via). Try testing only for test #2( test for occurences of RFC1918 addresses in Contact header field) by using nat_uac_test("2").
-
Andres -
Dinesh