During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions
Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
take a look at fix_nated_register() from nathelper. This function will use the received column.
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Klaus Darilion wrote:
take a look at fix_nated_register() from nathelper. This function will use the received column.
Thank you very much for you timely reply! Yes, you are right, I am now browsing the fix_nated_*() functions. What I want to to is to extend the extract_mediaport() to support the extraction of the audio and video port from SDP. Of course, we had to modify the alter_mediaport(), rtpproxy program and protocol between them.:( I wonder who can give some advice on that!
Thanks for all of you. Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi!
Some time ago, there was a patch on the mailinglist for this extension. But it never was included in the official rtpproxy. AFAIK mediaproxy supports also video. Nevertheless, it would be great if video support would be included in nathelper and rtpproxy.
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
take a look at fix_nated_register() from nathelper. This function will use the received column.
Thank you very much for you timely reply! Yes, you are right, I am now browsing the fix_nated_*() functions. What I want to to is to extend the extract_mediaport() to support the extraction of the audio and video port from SDP. Of course, we had to modify the alter_mediaport(), rtpproxy program and protocol between them.:( I wonder who can give some advice on that!
Thanks for all of you.Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Guys,
I tested the patch that was released on the mailing list when it was tehre (proberbly 2-3-4 months ago) And it worked like a charm.
-atle
* Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at [050303 11:38]:
Hi!
Some time ago, there was a patch on the mailinglist for this extension. But it never was included in the official rtpproxy. AFAIK mediaproxy supports also video. Nevertheless, it would be great if video support would be included in nathelper and rtpproxy.
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
take a look at fix_nated_register() from nathelper. This function will use the received column.
Thank you very much for you timely reply! Yes, you are right, I am now browsing the fix_nated_*() functions. What I want to to is to extend the extract_mediaport() to support the extraction of the audio and video port from SDP. Of course, we had to modify the alter_mediaport(), rtpproxy program and protocol between them.:( I wonder who can give some advice on that!
Thanks for all of you. Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I already have a version of nathelper/rtpproxy which correctly handles several media streams per single SIP session. I am planning to make it available for general public in about 1 month.
-Maxim
szj wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
take a look at fix_nated_register() from nathelper. This function will use the received column.
Thank you very much for you timely reply! Yes, you are right, I am now browsing the fix_nated_*() functions. What I want to to is to extend the extract_mediaport() to support the extraction of the audio and video port from SDP. Of course, we had to modify the alter_mediaport(), rtpproxy program and protocol between them.:( I wonder who can give some advice on that!
Thanks for all of you.Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
I already have a version of nathelper/rtpproxy which correctly handles several media streams per single SIP session. I am planning to make it available for general public in about 1 month.
Great, Maxim:
I must say, it cost you too much effort to do that. Thanks very much for you and your hard work.:)
I hope to see that in the CVS later.
Thanks again. Best Regards.
Sun Zongjun
-Maxim
szj wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
take a look at fix_nated_register() from nathelper. This function will use the received column.
Thank you very much for you timely reply! Yes, you are right, I am now browsing the fix_nated_*() functions. What I want to to is to extend the extract_mediaport() to support the extraction of the audio and video port from SDP. Of course, we had to modify the alter_mediaport(), rtpproxy program and protocol between them.:( I wonder who can give some advice on that!
Thanks for all of you.Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
regards, klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream. What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Atle Samuelsen -
Klaus Darilion -
Maxim Sobolev -
szj