24 Jan
2007
24 Jan
'07
4:37 a.m.
Hello ,
Hello,
I have the following situation:
UA's ----> openser ----> proxy ------> international
172.19.5.0/24 172.19.5.2 172.19.5.3 traffic
A.B.C.D E.F.G.H
The problem is about proxy, I need a proxy which would be function as
transit between openser (private IP) and a router with a public IP
(it should pass the NAT too).
I have tested siproxd(http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/) for the case
when it sits between the openser (public IP) and the users with
private IP - and it works.
In the first case siproxd doesn't want to work ( neither as a
transparent sip proxy), openser sends INVITE to proxy, it replies 408
Request Time Out.
The question is: can RTPproxy or mediaproxy help me in this case? Or
maybe there is another solution to solve my problem?
--
Best regards,
Ion Minzu,
mailto:ion.minzu@cts.md
24 Jan
24 Jan
4:52 a.m.
Salut Ion,
to be honest I never tried this, but theoretical it should work if you
configure the transit proxy with two interfaces and use either the
mhomed core param, either force_send_socket() to control the interface
selection.
from media point of view, I know rtpproxy support bridging mode, but I
do not know about mediaproxy.
regards,
bogdan
Ion Minzu wrote:
Hello ,
Hello,
I have the following situation:
UA's ----> openser ----> proxy ------> international
172.19.5.0/24 172.19.5.2 172.19.5.3 traffic
A.B.C.D E.F.G.H
The problem is about proxy, I need a proxy which would be function as
transit between openser (private IP) and a router with a public IP
(it should pass the NAT too).
I have tested siproxd(http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/) for the case
when it sits between the openser (public IP) and the users with
private IP - and it works.
In the first case siproxd doesn't want to work ( neither as a
transparent sip proxy), openser sends INVITE to proxy, it replies 408
Request Time Out.
The question is: can RTPproxy or mediaproxy help me in this case? Or
maybe there is another solution to solve my problem?
9:07 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: [Users] VoIP tranzit proxy
Salut Bogdan-Andrei,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 11:52:41 AM, you wrote:
Siproxd can't be use for my scheme, just between the users and
openser. I realized it just now.
I explain why:
- in my case siproxd waits from the openser the message REGISTER, but
this message doesn't come. Normally comes just the message INVITE,
that's why siproxd replies 408 Request Time Out.
Debug from siproxd:
-INFO:proxy.c:159 Outgoing Call: 12345(a)domain.com -> 678910(a)domain.com
-proxy.c:272 request [INVITE] from/to unregistered UA (RQ: 12345(a)domain.com ->
678910(a)domain.com)
P.S. Maybe isn't the case to write it here, but I think it will be useful.
I have lost 1 day playing with the siproxd.
Trying to do it using mediaproxy :)))
Salut Ion,
to be honest I never tried this, but theoretical it
should work if you
configure the transit proxy with two interfaces and use either the
mhomed core param, either force_send_socket() to control the interface
selection.
from media point of view, I know rtpproxy support
bridging mode, but I
do not know about mediaproxy.
regards,
bogdan
Ion Minzu wrote:
>Hello ,
>
> Hello,
>
> I have the following situation:
>
> UA's ----> openser ----> proxy ------> international
> 172.19.5.0/24 172.19.5.2 172.19.5.3 traffic
> A.B.C.D E.F.G.H
>
> The problem is about proxy, I need a proxy which would be function as
> transit between openser (private IP) and a router with a public IP
> (it should pass the NAT too).
> I have tested siproxd(http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/) for the case
> when it sits between the openser (public IP) and the users with
> private IP - and it works.
> In the first case siproxd doesn't want to work ( neither as a
> transparent sip proxy), openser sends INVITE to proxy, it replies 408
> Request Time Out.
>
> The question is: can RTPproxy or mediaproxy help me in this case? Or
> maybe there is another solution to solve my problem?
>
>
>
>
>
--
Best regards,
Ion mailto:ion.minzu@cts.md
10:17 a.m.
Salut Ion,
you do not need the siproxd at all- just use openser as a middle server.
regards,
bogdan
Ion Minzu wrote:
Salut Bogdan-Andrei,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 11:52:41 AM, you wrote:
Siproxd can't be use for my scheme, just between the users and
openser. I realized it just now.
I explain why:
- in my case siproxd waits from the openser the message REGISTER, but
this message doesn't come. Normally comes just the message INVITE,
that's why siproxd replies 408 Request Time Out.
Debug from siproxd:
-INFO:proxy.c:159 Outgoing Call: 12345(a)domain.com -> 678910(a)domain.com
-proxy.c:272 request [INVITE] from/to unregistered UA (RQ: 12345(a)domain.com ->
678910(a)domain.com)
P.S. Maybe isn't the case to write it here, but I think it will be useful.
I have lost 1 day playing with the siproxd.
Trying to do it using mediaproxy :)))
Salut Ion,
to be honest I never tried this, but theoretical
it should work if you
configure the transit proxy with two interfaces and use either the
mhomed core param, either force_send_socket() to control the interface
selection.
from media point of view, I know rtpproxy support
bridging mode, but I
do not know about mediaproxy.
regards,
bogdan
Ion Minzu wrote:
>Hello ,
>
> Hello,
>
> I have the following situation:
>
> UA's ----> openser ----> proxy ------> international
> 172.19.5.0/24 172.19.5.2 172.19.5.3 traffic
> A.B.C.D E.F.G.H
>
>The problem is about proxy, I need a proxy which would be function as
>transit between openser (private IP) and a router with a public IP
>(it should pass the NAT too).
>I have tested siproxd(http://siproxd.sourceforge.net/) for the case
>when it sits between the openser (public IP) and the users with
>private IP - and it works.
>In the first case siproxd doesn't want to work ( neither as a
>transparent sip proxy), openser sends INVITE to proxy, it replies 408
>Request Time Out.
>
>The question is: can RTPproxy or mediaproxy help me in this case? Or
>maybe there is another solution to solve my problem?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
9:17 a.m.
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
to be honest I never tried this, but theoretical it
should work if you
configure the transit proxy with two interfaces and use either the
mhomed core param, either force_send_socket() to control the interface
selection.
from media point of view, I know rtpproxy support bridging mode, but I
do not know about mediaproxy.
Using mhomed=1 works pretty well in such a scenario. If you're able to
directly route your internal traffic (RTP in this case) to public IPs,
mediaproxy works well too.
Regards,
Andreas
10:21 a.m.
Hi Andreas,
yes mhomed works ok but is something very expensive to use - it does
autodetection of the egress interface by opening, binding and closing
some temporary sockets. And this is done for each message. So, if you
have a very clear flow through interfaces, I prefer using
force_send_socket() :).
regards,
bogdan
Andreas Granig wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
to be honest I never tried this, but theoretical
it should work if
you configure the transit proxy with two interfaces and use either
the mhomed core param, either force_send_socket() to control the
interface selection.
from media point of view, I know rtpproxy support bridging mode, but
I do not know about mediaproxy.
Using mhomed=1 works pretty well in such a scenario. If you're able to
directly route your internal traffic (RTP in this case) to public IPs,
mediaproxy works well too.
Regards,
Andreas
10:28 a.m.
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
yes mhomed works ok but is something very expensive to
use - it does
autodetection of the egress interface by opening, binding and closing
some temporary sockets. And this is done for each message. So, if you
have a very clear flow through interfaces, I prefer using
force_send_socket() :).
Ah, that's good to know, in case performance becomes an issue one day :o)
Cheers,
Andreas
10:56 a.m.
I think that ACK may have some minor issues with mhomed (sometimes it
will be sent with the src IP of the other interface). But this
doesn't break the call :)
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On 1/24/07, Andreas Granig <andreas.granig(a)inode.info> wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
yes mhomed works ok but is something very
expensive to use - it does
autodetection of the egress interface by opening, binding and closing
some temporary sockets. And this is done for each message. So, if you
have a very clear flow through interfaces, I prefer using
force_send_socket() :).
Ah, that's good to know, in case performance becomes an issue one day :o)
Cheers,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
6437
days inactive
6437
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andreas Granig -
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu -
Ion Minzu -
Ovidiu Sas