[Serdev] Re: [Serusers] Re: First tests with nathelper

[Jan Janak]

Maxim,

Let me know once you release it. We will deploy it on iptel.org along
with the nathelper module for testing.

  Jan.

On 15-05 02:45, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> We have solved this issue by using symmetric rtp proxy integrated with 
> nathelper module. We have not released it yet, but planning to do it in 
> the nearest future. Stay tuned.
> 
> -Maxim
> 
> Ricardo Villa wrote:
> >Hi Maxim,
> >
> >I tried out the nathelper module and it works as described.  It certainly
> >solves the problem of getting Natted ATAs to send SIP messages between each
> >other.  Unfortunately I do not see how one can solve the problem of the
> >Natted RTP stream.  For example, an ATA behind a NAT sends an INVITE 
> >message
> >(to a UA that is out in the internet) saying that its audio port is 20000.
> >Once the call is established (thanks to the nathelper module), the ATA
> >starts generating the audio stream with source port 20000 but once it 
> >passes
> >through the NAT the source port gets changed to some random number.  The
> >remote user agent is trying to send its stream to port 20000 but the NAT
> >drops it because it is not valid in its NAT table.
> >
> >How have you solved this issue?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Ricardo
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Maxim Sobolev" <sobomax at portaone.com>
> >To: <jaime at umtstrial.co.uk>
> >Cc: <serdev at lists.iptel.org>; <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 5:18 AM
> >Subject: [Serusers] Re: First tests with nathelper
> >
> >
> >
> >>I've just committed into the cvs the autopinging feature useful to
> >>keep NAT bindings alive. If possible, please test and let me know
> >>then. Basically, everything you need to do is to recompile/reinstall
> >>ser and all modules and add the following into your config:
> >>
> >>modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", N)
> >>
> >>Where N is some non-zero interval in seconds (usually 15-30 should
> >>be OK).
> >>
> >>Thanks!
> >>
> >>-Maxim
> >>
> >>On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:38:44PM +0100, jaime at umtstrial.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello Maxim,
> >>>
> >>>I have been trying your module on one server with a customised
> >>>configuration, very similar to the default one in nathelper.cfg.
> >>
> >Actually,
> >
> >>>I'm trying to connect through a NAT to a server running SER with the
> >>>nathelper module. The overall configuration looks like this:
> >>>
> >>>UA1 --- NAT --- SER (proxy and registrar)
> >>>UA2  |
> >>>
> >>>UA1 and UA2 must traverse a NAT in order to reach SER. The NAT does not
> >>>have port forwarding whatsoever.
> >>>
> >>>I was trying to see what happens to REGISTER, SUBSCRIBE, MESSAGE and
> >>>INVITE messages. The nathelper adds rport and received to the Via field,
> >>>so any response from the server gets routed correctly to the appropriate
> >>>destination (that is, the NAT external interface).
> >>>
> >>>REGISTER's Contact is stored at registration and the 200 OK reaches the
> >>>initiating client through the NAT.
> >>>
> >>>However, any other SIP message involving a database lookup into
> >>
> >"location"
> >
> >>>will try to relay the message to the natted client, which is not
> >>
> >reachable
> >
> >>>from the SER proxy (see diagram above). I think this could work if in
> >>>location table you stored the "received" and "rport" values instead of
> >>
> >the
> >
> >>>"Contact" field received when regitering (if that does not go against
> >>>standards...). Then, just keep alive the NAT binding somehow (I think
> >>
> >you
> >
> >>>where mentioning it in a previous email).
> >>>
> >>>Does this sound resonable? Making this scenario work would allow people
> >>
> >at
> >
> >>>home with simple NAT's to use a public proxy (like Iptel's) and its
> >>>services (Instant Messaging and Presence mainly)...
> >>>
> >>>Jaime
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Serusers mailing list
> >>serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serdev mailing list
> serdev at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20030515/96c936d8/attachment.pgp>