AW: [Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited

Brunner, Armin armin.brunner at
Thu Feb 5 05:02:49 CET 2004

there seem a problem with the IPv6 part of the rtpproxy. All works fine with nathelper/rtpproxy
inthe ipv4 mode (rtpproxy without an address or only with the "-l IPv4-address" option).
But if I start rtpproxy in the IPv6-mode with "-6 IPv6-address" crashes as soon there is a session
boostie:/home/brunner # ser/rtpproxy/rtpproxy -f -6 2001:620:8:801:201:2ff:fe94:8e10    
rtpproxy: rtpproxy started, pid 9787
rtpproxy: new session CD1B7AB1-2784-4203-AF8F-7DAC8AE4E250 at <mailto:CD1B7AB1-2784-4203-AF8F-7DAC8AE4E250 at> , tag 2953072307 requested
segmentation fault
I'm using the newest CVS versions of nathelper and rtpproxy.
In your announcment of the new rtpproxy/nathelper version you mention that there is no IPv6 
address preloading. Because not writen any C-program for 15 years it would be definitly not 
trivial for me to do this extension. You you think to finish the IPv6 support in nathelper/rtpproxy 
in the next 3 month? 

	-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
	Von: serusers-bounces at im Auftrag von Maxim Sobolev 
	Gesendet: Sa 31.01.2004 20:56 
	An: Jan Janak 
	Cc: serusers at 
	Betreff: Re: [Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited

	Yes, indeed, there was a problem with force_rtp_proxy(). I've just
	committed a fix (1.38). The problem was that you were trying to use
	results of one call to ip_addr2a() after another call to that function.
	Since ip_addr2a() returns pointer to a static internal buffer, it was
	leading to incorrect results.
	Jan Janak wrote:
	> What change do you mean ? I reviewed and commited some changes on behalf
	> of Tristan, so please blame me (and provide me with more details if
	> possible) :-).
	> Could you make sure that the version before my commit works ?
	>  Jan.
	> On 30-01 11:14, Andres wrote:
	>>I have now tested multiple versions of nathelper from January.  The
	>>problem appears after the changes made by Tristan Colgate on
	>>2004-01-16.  Nathelper/rtpproxy works fine on the version from 2004-01-15.
	>>Can you take a look at this Tristan?  Maxim?
	>>Network Admin
	>>Andres wrote:
	>>>Hi Maxim,
	>>>I am in the process of testing this new version in our lab with
	>>>0.8.13.  We have been using the older versions with great success for
	>>>many months now.   But the new version does not work.  We are testing
	>>>with Grandstream and Sipura units.  When a Sipura calls another
	>>>Sipura,  the nathelper/rtpproxy fails to insert the proper "Connection
	>>>Information (c)" in the SDP. Instead of filling in the IP Address of
	>>>the RTPProxy it just leaves the same address and adds these  four
	>>>characters "\000" to the end which seem to make the other Sipura
	>>>unhappy because it terminates the call right away with a "488- Not
	>>>Acceptable" Message.
	>>>When a Grandstream is making the call, the same thing happens, with
	>>>the exception of the four characters.  (IP Address in Connection
	>>>Information (c) is not updated)
	>>>The Ports do seem to get changed appropiately by the
	>>>nathelper/rtpproxy in both cases.  But since the IP is not substituted
	>>>there is no chance of audio being setup properly.
	>>>I can send the Ethereal traces if  you want.
	>>>Let me know what we can do to fix this issue.
	>>Serusers mailing list
	>>serusers at
	Serusers mailing list
	serusers at

More information about the sr-users mailing list