hello friends in nat its not working i have downloaded the stable cvs version of ser and rtp proxy of [root@server rtpproxy]# ./rtpproxy -v 20040107 and my ser.cfg file looks like this ******************************************************* debug=8 # debug level fork=yes log_stderror=yes # (cmd line: -E) 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" # ------------------ module loading loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so" # !! Nathelper loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters # -- usrloc params -- modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) # -- rr params -- # add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) # !! Nathelper modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # ------------------------- request routing logic # main routing logic 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") { 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(); }; } ******************************************************* and in ethereal report i found this ****************************************************** [root@server root]# tethereal -r test1.eth tethereal: Symbol `pcap_version' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking 1 0.000000 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* UDP Source port: 5001 Destination port: 5060[Malformed Packet] 2 4.084851 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP/SDP Request: INVITE sip:216110@202.65.*.*, with session description 3 4.090585 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP Status: 100 trying -- your call is important to us 4 4.090761 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP/SDP Request: INVITE sip:216110@202.65.*.*:5060, with session description 5 4.095809 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* ICMP Destination unreachable 26 33.931583 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP Status: 408 Request Timeout 27 33.952005 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP Request: ACK sip:216110@202.65.*.* ******************************************************* with regards rama kanth __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail