[Serusers] SER on masqueraded/NAT connection

[Craig Graham]

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 at iptel.org>
To: "Kelvin Chua" <kchua at up.edu.ph>; "'Craig Graham'"
<craig at twolips-translations.co.uk>; <serusers at 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 at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-admin at lists.iptel.org] On
> >Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:46 PM
> >To: Craig Graham; serusers at 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 at lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >--
> >Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers at lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
> --
> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>
>
>