Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff
Wouldn't mind learning from your accomplishments. How about sharing some how-tos and/or config files?
Would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Waldo
On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:58 AM, jeff kwong wrote:
Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Waldo,
I didn't do anything else outside the instructions as in the Getting Started Manual from Onsip.org http://Onsip.org for the SER with MySQL and connecting to a PSTN gateway.I also got the config from there. I also got a good set of tips for that in my previous posts here. As for the Siproxd, I just followed the online docs here: http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/ .
On 9/2/05, Waldo Rubinstein waldo@trianet.net wrote:
Wouldn't mind learning from your accomplishments. How about sharing some how-tos and/or config files?
Would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Waldo
On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:58 AM, jeff kwong wrote:
Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Does this work as a far-end NAT traversal solution (ALG running only where SER/Asterisk is hosted, not where UAs are located)?
Mark
On 9/2/05, jeff kwong kwongfucius@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Waldo,
I didn't do anything else outside the instructions as in the Getting Started Manual from Onsip.org http://Onsip.org for the SER with MySQL and connecting to a PSTN gateway.I also got the config from there. I also got a good set of tips for that in my previous posts here. As for the Siproxd, I just followed the online docs here: http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/ .
On 9/2/05, Waldo Rubinstein < waldo@trianet.net> wrote:
Wouldn't mind learning from your accomplishments. How about sharing some how-tos and/or config files?
Would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Waldo
On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:58 AM, jeff kwong wrote:
Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff _______________________________________________ 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
What about the scalabilty of siproxd and what about the number of simultaneous calls it can support?
Olivier
-----Message d'origine----- De : serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] De la part de Mark Aiken Envoyé : vendredi 2 septembre 2005 7:58 À : jeff kwong Cc : Serusers Objet : Re: [Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk
Does this work as a far-end NAT traversal solution (ALG running only where SER/Asterisk is hosted, not where UAs are located)?
Mark
On 9/2/05, jeff kwong kwongfucius@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Waldo,
I didn't do anything else outside the instructions as in the Getting Started Manual from Onsip.org for the SER with MySQL and connecting to a PSTN gateway.I also got the config from there. I also got a good set of tips for that in my previous posts here. As for the Siproxd, I just followed the online docs here: http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/ .
On 9/2/05, Waldo Rubinstein < waldo@trianet.net mailto:waldo@trianet.net > wrote:
Wouldn't mind learning from your accomplishments. How about sharing some how-tos and/or config files?
Would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Waldo
On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:58 AM, jeff kwong wrote:
Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello to all I have SER working with a public IP, and accepting connections from the internet. But in a remote office, behind ADSL with a SMC Router (SMC7904WBRA), my NATed clients can register to SER, but cant make calls. In the router configuration theres a place to configure special applications and has fields for:
trigger port: protocol: [UDP\TCP]
outside port: protocol: [UDP\TCP]
I already tried to put the 5060 port and UDP, but the NATed phones just ring, but no RTP passes... Do someone knows the correct ports to put here? Thanks Joao Pereira
I don´t think it´s a router problem. I have had that problem with SEMS conferencing. If you use a sniffer at your SER server, you´ll probably see that you are not sending media. In my case, the server sends just one packet and the stops sending. Try to take a look!
Regards,
Jose Simoes
2005/11/7, Joao Pereira joao.pereira@fccn.pt:
Hello to all I have SER working with a public IP, and accepting connections from the internet. But in a remote office, behind ADSL with a SMC Router (SMC7904WBRA), my NATed clients can register to SER, but cant make calls. In the router configuration theres a place to configure special applications and has fields for:
trigger port: protocol: [UDP\TCP]
outside port: protocol: [UDP\TCP]
I already tried to put the 5060 port and UDP, but the NATed phones just ring, but no RTP passes... Do someone knows the correct ports to put here? Thanks Joao Pereira
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
IMHO, siproxd is not suited for a far-end NAT traversal scenario and certainly not capable of scaling if you have a large user community. It is suitable (and made) as a way to simplify traversal through firewalls in the corporate network and can be used standalone to handle mydomain.com calls (company internal and email-based calls). With ser, I assume it can be used to move the NAT issue from centrally managed closer to the user community. It may make sense to in some scenarios if the corporation is not ready to upgrade the FW to one with SIP ALG or upon up lots of ports. Summary: - If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation), siproxd should do fine - If you provide services to the corporation and the ser is on the outside, it should be installed on a case by case basis (some FWs have SIP ALG already) - If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind corporate FWs, forget about siproxd
g-) ----- Original Message ----- From: jeff kwong To: Serusers Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 06:58 AM Subject: [Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk
Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
thanks Greger, that's clear :)
Olivier
-----Message d'origine----- De : serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] De la part de Greger V. Teigre Envoyé : vendredi 2 septembre 2005 8:36 À : jeff kwong; Serusers Objet : Re: [Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk
IMHO, siproxd is not suited for a far-end NAT traversal scenario and certainly not capable of scaling if you have a large user community. It is suitable (and made) as a way to simplify traversal through firewalls in the corporate network and can be used standalone to handle mydomain.com calls (company internal and email-based calls). With ser, I assume it can be used to move the NAT issue from centrally managed closer to the user community. It may make sense to in some scenarios if the corporation is not ready to upgrade the FW to one with SIP ALG or upon up lots of ports. Summary: - If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation), siproxd should do fine - If you provide services to the corporation and the ser is on the outside, it should be installed on a case by case basis (some FWs have SIP ALG already) - If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind corporate FWs, forget about siproxd
g-)
----- Original Message ----- From: jeff mailto:kwongfucius@gmail.com kwong To: Serusers mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 06:58 AM Subject: [Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk
Hi Guys!
I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
UA1--NAT---UA2
and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting?
Thanks! _jeff
_____
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Thanks for the active replies =) ... I guess we can use a combination of the various nat solutions we have to suite as the need be. Lets say, SER has nathelper and mediaproxy for nated clients, but when UA is from a NAT with Siproxd, SER does not need to use mediaproxy .
As for how many simultaneous calls it can support there seems to be no data for that yet even on their official website. Maybe the community there could schedule some tests later.
Thanks, _jeff
On 9/2/05, Greger V. Teigre greger@teigre.com wrote:
IMHO, siproxd is not suited for a far-end NAT traversal scenario and certainly not capable of scaling if you have a large user community. It is suitable (and made) as a way to simplify traversal through firewalls in the corporate network and can be used standalone to handle mydomain.comhttp://mydomain.comcalls (company internal and email-based calls). With ser, I assume it can be used to move the NAT issue from centrally managed closer to the user community. It may make sense to in some scenarios if the corporation is not ready to upgrade the FW to one with SIP ALG or upon up lots of ports. Summary:
- If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation),
siproxd should do fine
- If you provide services to the corporation and the ser is on the
outside, it should be installed on a case by case basis (some FWs have SIP ALG already)
- If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind
corporate FWs, forget about siproxd g-)
Thanks for the active replies =) ... I guess we can use a combination of the various nat solutions we have to suite as the need be. Lets say, >SER has nathelper and mediaproxy for nated clients, but when UA is from a NAT with Siproxd, SER does not need to use mediaproxy .
If siproxd adds itself as user agent in REGISTER, this will be easy to detect.
As for how many simultaneous calls it can support there seems to be no data for that yet even on their official website. Maybe the >community there could schedule some tests later.
;-)
g-) On 9/2/05, Greger V. Teigre greger@teigre.com wrote: IMHO, siproxd is not suited for a far-end NAT traversal scenario and certainly not capable of scaling if you have a large user community. It is suitable (and made) as a way to simplify traversal through firewalls in the corporate network and can be used standalone to handle mydomain.com calls (company internal and email-based calls). With ser, I assume it can be used to move the NAT issue from centrally managed closer to the user community. It may make sense to in some scenarios if the corporation is not ready to upgrade the FW to one with SIP ALG or upon up lots of ports. Summary: - If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation), siproxd should do fine - If you provide services to the corporation and the ser is on the outside, it should be installed on a case by case basis (some FWs have SIP ALG already) - If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind corporate FWs, forget about siproxd
g-)
Yup, I looked at siproxd sometime back, and for a mixed solution where you wish to deal with corporate with strange (not cooperative ) networks, it is good, but as mentioned below, scalability I am not too sure about
Iqbal
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
IMHO, siproxd is not suited for a far-end NAT traversal scenario and certainly not capable of scaling if you have a large user community. It is suitable (and made) as a way to simplify traversal through firewalls in the corporate network and can be used standalone to handle mydomain.com calls (company internal and email-based calls). With ser, I assume it can be used to move the NAT issue from centrally managed closer to the user community. It may make sense to in some scenarios if the corporation is not ready to upgrade the FW to one with SIP ALG or upon up lots of ports. Summary:
- If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation),
siproxd should do fine
- If you provide services to the corporation and the ser is on the
outside, it should be installed on a case by case basis (some FWs have SIP ALG already)
- If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind
corporate FWs, forget about siproxd
g-)
----- Original Message ----- *From:* jeff kwong <mailto:kwongfucius@gmail.com> *To:* Serusers <mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org> *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2005 06:58 AM *Subject:* [Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk Hi Guys! I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below: UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK for 2 UA behind the same NAT: UA1--NAT---UA2 and for 2 UA behind different NATs: UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2 Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER features like accounting? Thanks! _jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
-
Greger V. Teigre -
Iqbal -
jeff kwong -
Joao Pereira -
Mark Aiken -
Olivier Taylor -
Voipers Portugal -
Waldo Rubinstein