14 Jan
2003
14 Jan
'03
10:28 a.m.
I have a Linux box at home acting as a masquerading/NAT gateway for a few
Windows PCs, and have installed SER on there in order to use MS Messenger to
talk to people outside.
SER appears to be working in that I can get Messenger up on two PCs, connect
to SER and set up a voice connection between the two PCs. However, I cannot
connect to people offsite.
Relevant IPChains entries are
target prot opt source destination ports
ACCEPT udp ----l- anywhere anywhere any ->
5060
ACCEPT udp ------ anywhere anywhere any ->
7070:7080
I have made no changes to the default SIP configuration; it is working as
installed by the rpm package ser-0.8.10-1.i386.rpm. A browse through the
mailing list archive and through the admin guide doesn't show anything
obvious. No errors are reported to /etc/messages or /etc/syslog and serctl
moni does not show anything that looks relevant.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
14 Jan
14 Jan
1:46 p.m.
Craigh,
the problem unfortunately lives deeper than in SER -- it is
about SIP interaction with NATs. SIP advertises IP addresses
and port numbers in its messages, a technique which does not
work along with NATs. What happens is that SIP messages from
your private network get out to the public Internet, still
carry private IP addresses in it, and attempts of other call
parties to use these private IP addresses will fail.
A preview of the .11 documentation mentions these issues.
(I hope the correct link is www.iptel.org/ser/doc/, I'm offline
now.)
I'm unfortunately not aware of a method that would be able
to traverse Linux-NAT for Messengers. All of the methods
I'm aware of take some kind of NAT-support in end-devices,
SIP-support in NATs or both. They include ALG (i.e., SIP
awareness in NATs,for example intertex NATs do that), STUN
(phones' ability to "fool" NATs, for example k-phone or
snom do it), UPnP (must be supported by both phone and NAT),
manual configuration (one must have "tweakable" phones
and NATs and the ability to actually tweak both), or
"symmetric phones" (like Cisco's ATA).
-Jiri
At 11:28 AM 1/14/2003, Craig Graham wrote:
I have a Linux box at home acting as a masquerading/NAT
gateway for a few
Windows PCs, and have installed SER on there in order to use MS Messenger to
talk to people outside.
SER appears to be working in that I can get Messenger up on two PCs, connect
to SER and set up a voice connection between the two PCs. However, I cannot
connect to people offsite.
Relevant IPChains entries are
target prot opt source destination ports
ACCEPT udp ----l- anywhere anywhere any ->
5060
ACCEPT udp ------ anywhere anywhere any ->
7070:7080
I have made no changes to the default SIP configuration; it is working as
installed by the rpm package ser-0.8.10-1.i386.rpm. A browse through the
mailing list archive and through the admin guide doesn't show anything
obvious. No errors are reported to /etc/messages or /etc/syslog and serctl
moni does not show anything that looks relevant.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
15 Jan
15 Jan
2:23 a.m.
I would suggest a cisco router to act as a NAT. it can read the SIP
messages properly. Though I'm still undergoing some tests with it, so
far sa good :)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:46 PM
To: Craig Graham; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection
Craigh,
the problem unfortunately lives deeper than in SER -- it is about SIP
interaction with NATs. SIP advertises IP addresses and port numbers in
its messages, a technique which does not work along with NATs. What
happens is that SIP messages from your private network get out to the
public Internet, still carry private IP addresses in it, and attempts of
other call parties to use these private IP addresses will fail.
A preview of the .11 documentation mentions these issues.
(I hope the correct link is www.iptel.org/ser/doc/, I'm offline
now.)
I'm unfortunately not aware of a method that would be able
to traverse Linux-NAT for Messengers. All of the methods
I'm aware of take some kind of NAT-support in end-devices, SIP-support
in NATs or both. They include ALG (i.e., SIP awareness in NATs,for
example intertex NATs do that), STUN (phones' ability to "fool" NATs,
for example k-phone or snom do it), UPnP (must be supported by both
phone and NAT), manual configuration (one must have "tweakable" phones
and NATs and the ability to actually tweak both), or
"symmetric phones" (like Cisco's ATA).
-Jiri
At 11:28 AM 1/14/2003, Craig Graham wrote:
I have a Linux box at home acting as a masquerading/NAT
gateway for a
few Windows PCs, and have installed SER on there in order to use MS
Messenger to talk to people outside.
SER appears to be working in that I can get Messenger up on two PCs,
connect to SER and set up a voice connection between the two PCs.
However, I cannot connect to people offsite.
Relevant IPChains entries are
target prot opt source destination
ports
ACCEPT udp ----l- anywhere anywhere
any
->
5060
ACCEPT udp ------ anywhere anywhere any
->
7070:7080
I have made no changes to the default SIP configuration; it is working
as installed by the rpm package ser-0.8.10-1.i386.rpm. A browse through
the mailing list archive and through the admin guide
doesn't show
anything obvious. No errors are reported to /etc/messages or
/etc/syslog and serctl moni does not show anything that looks relevant.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
9:33 a.m.
That's indeed one possibility for NAT traversal. It takes upgrading a NAT
with a SIP-aware NAT. Cisco PIX is told to support SIP. I was told it did
not support PPPoE, which some people may miss. The smallest PIX is becoming
affordable. Another device is Intextex (w/PPPoE).
Again -- other possibilities are UPnP, STUN, twist&tweak.
-Jiri
At 03:23 AM 1/15/2003, Kelvin Chua wrote:
I would suggest a cisco router to act as a NAT. it can
read the SIP
messages properly. Though I'm still undergoing some tests with it, so
far sa good :)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:46 PM
To: Craig Graham; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection
Craigh,
the problem unfortunately lives deeper than in SER -- it is about SIP
interaction with NATs. SIP advertises IP addresses and port numbers in
its messages, a technique which does not work along with NATs. What
happens is that SIP messages from your private network get out to the
public Internet, still carry private IP addresses in it, and attempts of
other call parties to use these private IP addresses will fail.
A preview of the .11 documentation mentions these issues.
(I hope the correct link is www.iptel.org/ser/doc/, I'm offline
now.)
I'm unfortunately not aware of a method that would be able
to traverse Linux-NAT for Messengers. All of the methods
I'm aware of take some kind of NAT-support in end-devices, SIP-support
in NATs or both. They include ALG (i.e., SIP awareness in NATs,for
example intertex NATs do that), STUN (phones' ability to "fool" NATs,
for example k-phone or snom do it), UPnP (must be supported by both
phone and NAT), manual configuration (one must have "tweakable" phones
and NATs and the ability to actually tweak both), or
"symmetric phones" (like Cisco's ATA).
-Jiri
At 11:28 AM 1/14/2003, Craig Graham wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
I have a Linux box at home acting as a
masquerading/NAT gateway for a
few Windows PCs, and have installed SER on there in order to use MS
Messenger to talk to people outside.
SER appears to be working in that I can get Messenger up on two PCs,
connect to SER and set up a voice connection between the two PCs.
However, I cannot connect to people offsite.
Relevant IPChains entries are
target prot opt source destination
ports
ACCEPT udp ----l- anywhere
anywhere any
->
5060
ACCEPT udp ------ anywhere anywhere any
->
7070:7080
I have made no changes to the default SIP configuration; it is working
as installed by the rpm package ser-0.8.10-1.i386.rpm. A browse through
the mailing list archive and through the admin
guide doesn't show
anything obvious. No errors are reported to /etc/messages or
/etc/syslog and serctl moni does not show anything that looks relevant.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
3:01 p.m.
Thanks for the responses.
An Intertex box is an option, as we have one in the office and I know how to
use it. However, it's a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as such is
a last resort. Given I have text messaging to the office when I work from
home already, and we have telephones, the cost of an IX66 just for the
trendiness factor is difficult to justify.
I'm currently trying to get Partysip to work. Well, to compile with the
required options at least, since that can talk to IPTables and apparently
can be made to work reasonably well. Scaleability is of little importance to
a single house setup :)
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Kuthan" <jiri(a)iptel.org>
To: "Kelvin Chua" <kchua(a)up.edu.ph>ph>; "'Craig Graham'"
<craig(a)twolips-translations.co.uk>uk>; <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection
That's indeed one possibility for NAT traversal.
It takes upgrading a NAT
with a SIP-aware NAT. Cisco PIX is told to support SIP. I was told it did
not support PPPoE, which some people may miss. The smallest PIX is
becoming
affordable. Another device is Intextex (w/PPPoE).
Again -- other possibilities are UPnP, STUN, twist&tweak.
-Jiri
At 03:23 AM 1/15/2003, Kelvin Chua wrote:
I would suggest a cisco router to act as a NAT. it
can read the SIP
messages properly. Though I'm still undergoing some tests with it, so
far sa good :)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:46 PM
To: Craig Graham; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection
Craigh,
the problem unfortunately lives deeper than in SER -- it is about SIP
interaction with NATs. SIP advertises IP addresses and port numbers in
its messages, a technique which does not work along with NATs. What
happens is that SIP messages from your private network get out to the
public Internet, still carry private IP addresses in it, and attempts of
other call parties to use these private IP addresses will fail.
A preview of the .11 documentation mentions these issues.
(I hope the correct link is www.iptel.org/ser/doc/, I'm offline
now.)
I'm unfortunately not aware of a method that would be able
to traverse Linux-NAT for Messengers. All of the methods
I'm aware of take some kind of NAT-support in end-devices, SIP-support
in NATs or both. They include ALG (i.e., SIP awareness in NATs,for
example intertex NATs do that), STUN (phones' ability to "fool" NATs,
for example k-phone or snom do it), UPnP (must be supported by both
phone and NAT), manual configuration (one must have "tweakable" phones
and NATs and the ability to actually tweak both), or
"symmetric phones" (like Cisco's ATA).
-Jiri
At 11:28 AM 1/14/2003, Craig Graham wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
I have a Linux box at home acting as a
masquerading/NAT gateway for a
few Windows PCs, and have installed SER on there in order to use MS
Messenger to talk to people outside.
SER appears to be working in that I can get Messenger up on two PCs,
connect to SER and set up a voice connection between the two PCs.
However, I cannot connect to people offsite.
Relevant IPChains entries are
target prot opt source destination
ports
ACCEPT udp ----l- anywhere
anywhere any
->
5060
ACCEPT udp ------ anywhere anywhere any
->
7070:7080
I have made no changes to the default SIP configuration; it is working
as installed by the rpm package ser-0.8.10-1.i386.rpm. A browse through
the mailing list archive and through the admin
guide doesn't show
anything obvious. No errors are reported to /etc/messages or
/etc/syslog and serctl moni does not show anything that looks relevant.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
16 Jan
16 Jan
2:54 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BTW it exist an UPnP implementation for iptables.
I'm not sure but this UPnP server maybe could solve NAT traversal with the
Windows Messenger for one or more people.
Also i don't recommed the use of this UPnP server because i could create very
big security holes in you firewall.
Greetings
Nils
On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:33, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
That's indeed one possibility for NAT traversal.
It takes upgrading a NAT
with a SIP-aware NAT. Cisco PIX is told to support SIP. I was told it did
not support PPPoE, which some people may miss. The smallest PIX is becoming
affordable. Another device is Intextex (w/PPPoE).
Again -- other possibilities are UPnP, STUN, twist&tweak.
-Jiri
At 03:23 AM 1/15/2003, Kelvin Chua wrote:
- --
gpg-key: http://www.ohlmeier.org/public_key.asc
I would suggest a cisco router to act as a NAT. it
can read the SIP
messages properly. Though I'm still undergoing some tests with it, so
far sa good :)
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:46 PM
To: Craig Graham; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection
Craigh,
the problem unfortunately lives deeper than in SER -- it is about SIP
interaction with NATs. SIP advertises IP addresses and port numbers in
its messages, a technique which does not work along with NATs. What
happens is that SIP messages from your private network get out to the
public Internet, still carry private IP addresses in it, and attempts of
other call parties to use these private IP addresses will fail.
A preview of the .11 documentation mentions these issues.
(I hope the correct link is www.iptel.org/ser/doc/, I'm offline
now.)
I'm unfortunately not aware of a method that would be able
to traverse Linux-NAT for Messengers. All of the methods
I'm aware of take some kind of NAT-support in end-devices, SIP-support
in NATs or both. They include ALG (i.e., SIP awareness in NATs,for
example intertex NATs do that), STUN (phones' ability to "fool" NATs,
for example k-phone or snom do it), UPnP (must be supported by both
phone and NAT), manual configuration (one must have "tweakable" phones
and NATs and the ability to actually tweak both), or
"symmetric phones" (like Cisco's ATA).
-Jiri
At 11:28 AM 1/14/2003, Craig Graham wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers I have a Linux box at home acting as a
masquerading/NAT gateway for a
few Windows PCs, and have installed SER on there in order to use MS
Messenger to talk to people outside.
SER appears to be working in that I can get Messenger up on two PCs,
connect to SER and set up a voice connection between the two PCs.
However, I cannot connect to people offsite.
Relevant IPChains entries are
target prot opt source destination
ports
ACCEPT udp ----l- anywhere
anywhere any
->
5060
ACCEPT udp ------ anywhere anywhere any
->
7070:7080
I have made no changes to the default SIP configuration; it is working
as installed by the rpm package ser-0.8.10-1.i386.rpm. A browse through
the mailing list archive and through the admin guide doesn't show
anything obvious. No errors are reported to /etc/messages or
/etc/syslog and serctl moni does not show anything that looks relevant.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Jh7fx8PydbrWykARArqwAJ9kaqIldl85J30FzV22JYz035nNZgCeI8PX
clDpNb1Agf5id9+RnywbzHk=
=VvqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:39 a.m.
This was the first path I took. Unfortunately, I need to talk to people who
are behind two different Intertex IX66 boxes, which do not support UPnP.
--
Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer
Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nils Ohlmeier" <nils(a)ohlmeier.de>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Cc: "Jiri Kuthan" <jiri(a)iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BTW it exist an UPnP implementation for iptables.
I'm not sure but this UPnP server maybe could solve NAT traversal with the
Windows Messenger for one or more people.
Also i don't recommed the use of this UPnP server because i could create
very
big security holes in you firewall.
7788
days inactive
7790
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Craig Graham -
Jiri Kuthan -
Kelvin Chua -
Nils Ohlmeier