Hello, What I understand (from Frame12) Session Initiation Protocol Request-Line: BYE sip:000003@1.255.ua_priv__IP SIP/2.0 is that your GW does not comply with the fixed SIP UA Contact address Contact: <sip:000003@213.156.ua_pub_IP:1176> which SER seems to correctly fix it (from Frame6). GW must send the BYE request back to the fixed addr : 213.156.ua_pub_IP:1176. Try a different PSTN-GW or try to isolate the RTP-Proxy solution. I am really confused of your ser.cfg. You use force_rtp_proxy("l") on Loose Route Section / INVITE block, but you don't use force_rtp_proxy() on INVITE handler (Route[3]) and you don't also use rtp_proxy on BYE block at Loose Route Section. I tried this senario without Mediaproxy or RTPproxy with success. regards, Kostas --- K.Marneris(a)otenet.gr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabio Macchi" &lt;f.macchi(a)keeptelecom.com&gt; To: &lt;greger(a)teigre.com&gt; Cc: "'Kostas Marneris'" &lt;K.Marneris(a)otenet.gr&gt;gr>; &lt;serusers(a)lists.iptel.org&gt; Sent: 20 March 2007 19:56 Subject: R: R: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem Hi Greger, I attached an ethereal SIP call trace of a test call ( summary and detailed, I simple maskerade final ip numbers ): below only the INVITE relayed from proxy to gateway: Session Initiation Protocol Request-Line: INVITE sip:9999001234@194.244.gatewayIP:5060 SIP/2.0 Method: INVITE [Resent Packet: False] Message Header Record-Route: <sip:194.244.Proxy__IP;ftag=12e1e2e19d527792;lr=on> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 194.244.Proxy__IP;branch=z9hG4bKb24f.5133a2c4.0 Transport: UDP Sent-by Address: 194.244.Proxy__IP Branch: z9hG4bKb24f.5133a2c4.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.255.ua_priv__IP;rport=1176;received=213.156.ua_pub_IP;branch=z9hG4bK35ca7a df63e3094f Transport: UDP Sent-by Address: 1.255.ua_priv__IP RPort: 1176 Received: 213.156.ua_pub_IP Branch: z9hG4bK35ca7adf63e3094f From: "000003" <sip:000003@194.244.Proxy__IP>;tag=12e1e2e19d527792 SIP Display info: "000003" SIP from address: sip:000003@194.244.Proxy__IP SIP tag: 12e1e2e19d527792 To: <sip:9999001234@194.244.Proxy__IP> SIP to address: sip:9999001234@194.244.Proxy__IP Contact: <sip:000003@213.156.ua_pub_IP:1176> Contact Binding: <sip:000003@213.156.ua_pub_IP:1176> URI: <sip:000003@213.156.ua_pub_IP:1176> SIP contact address: sip:000003@213.156.ua_pub_IP:1176 Supported: replaces Call-ID: 953e8996cfcc4ccc(a)1.255.ua_priv__IP CSeq: 60577 INVITE Sequence Number: 60577 Method: INVITE User-Agent: Grandstream HT386 1.0.3.64 FXS0 Max-Forwards: 16 Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,REFER,OPTIONS,INFO,SUBSCRIBE Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 327 Message body As you can see, contact informations are correctly fixed with the pubblic UA address, but when the callee hungs up, the BYE is relayed to the private IP address: am I missing something ? In this invite I see UA private address only in VIA: does BYE look to this parameter ? Later caller hangs up too, and the OK is relayed to the correct IP/port. Any help would be high appreciate, thanks in advance. Fabio _____ Da: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] Inviato: martedμ 20 marzo 2007 9.59 A: Fabio Macchi Cc: 'Kostas Marneris'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Oggetto: Re: R: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem Normally this happens because you haven't fixed the Contact if the original INVITE or OK. g-) Fabio Macchi wrote: First, thanks for answer. I've tryed your trik and in effect this solve the problem of the '200 ok' forwarded to the UA, but my problem still remain alive: when BYE is sent from Gateway, it reaches correctly SER, but it still forward it to the private UA address. I was wondering about the nat_uac_test in this case, as the source of the BYE message is the gateway ( not natted ) and not the UA. Have any idea about this ? Fabio -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Kostas Marneris [mailto:K.Marneris@otenet.gr] Inviato: giovedμ 15 marzo 2007 20.39 A: Fabio Macchi Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem Hello, I was working on about the same problem today either with 'Mediaproxy solution' or with 'SER's Nathelper only solution' . The NAT issue is a nightmare, not because of SER but because of different implementations on NAT boxes. Actually my problem was : if the NATed UA send a BYE to SER, SER forward it to PSTN-GW, then the '200 Ok' Response from PSTN-GW is forwarded by SER to UA to the wrong port (Contact or Via header port). I used the following block on Loose Route section, (because BYE is loose_routed if you use Record-Route), and it seems to work. # --------------------------------------- # Loose Route Section # --------------------------------------- if (loose_route()) { # mark routing logic in request if (method == "BYE") { if (nat_uac_test("22")) { xlog("L_NOTICE", "*** LR -> NATed BYE - Use force_rport()"); force_rport(); }; }; route(1); break; }; I faced up your second problem too. The solution was to move the NAT handling block before proxy_authorize block. I think that the different behaviour does not come with the 'standard RFC1918 addresses', but with the different NAT type. I realize that the provisional mesgs '100 Trying' and '407 Proxy Authentication Required' are relayed back to the real IP addr of NATed UA (this is correct), but to the WRONG port (that of Contact/Via header and not the signalling received port). It seems that these mesgs use the IP address part of 'Received' field of Location DB but not the port. It happens to work if NAT box use the SAME port (eg. 5060) on NAT translation (10.10.10.1:5060 --> Real_IP:5060) (eg. with a SAGEM1500 Router) But it does not work if NAT box doesn't use the same port (10.10.10.1:5060 --> Real_IP:38181) I think that this has to be verified by SER developers or SER experts. Kostas --- K.Marneris(a)otenet.gr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabio Macchi" <mailto:f.macchi@keeptelecom.com> &lt;f.macchi(a)keeptelecom.com&gt; To: <mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org> &lt;serusers(a)lists.iptel.org&gt; Sent: 15 March 2007 19:34 Subject: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem Hi all, I'm running the following schema: UA ( possibly natted ) -> SER -> PSTN Gateway I have a problem with UA belonging to a particular network with private address not RFC1918 compliant ( class 1.x.x.x ), SER and PSTN Gateway have pubblic address. The problem is that, after a succesfull call, if the PSTN gateway send a BYE to SER, then SER forward BYE to the private address of UA instead of pubblic one. I don't understand which is the section that handle BYE messages and how can I solve this problem: anyone may help ? Second, another question: with this particular network I had problem with INVITE too, because SER was sending "proxy authorization request" to the wrong TCP port. To solve this, I've moved the nat handling ( with force_rport ) before the proxy_authorize block and it's working, but why this is not necessary on standard RFC1918 compliant natted address ? Many thanks for any explanation Fabio _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 20/03/2007 08:07