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

[Maxim Sobolev]

Can you please compile rtp proxy with debug symbols, make it crash and 
get backtrace out of the core file?

-Maxim

Brunner, Armin wrote:
> Maxim,
>  
> 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
> atempt:
>  
> 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 192.94.63.109 <mailto:CD1B7AB1-2784-4203-AF8F-7DAC8AE4E250 at 192.94.63.109> , tag 2953072307 requested
> segmentation fault
>  
> I'm using the newest CVS versions of nathelper and rtpproxy.
>  
> Regards
> Armin
>  
> P.S.
> 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 lists.iptel.org im Auftrag von Maxim Sobolev 
> 	Gesendet: Sa 31.01.2004 20:56 
> 	An: Jan Janak 
> 	Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org 
> 	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.
> 	
> 	-Maxim
> 	
> 	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:
> 	>
> 	>>Update...
> 	>>
> 	>>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?
> 	>>
> 	>>Thanks,
> 	>>
> 	>>--
> 	>>Andres
> 	>>Network Admin
> 	>>http://www.telesip.net
> 	>>
> 	>>
> 	>>
> 	>>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.
> 	>>>
> 	>>>Thanks,
> 	>>>
> 	>>
> 	>>
> 	>>_______________________________________________
> 	>>Serusers mailing list
> 	>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
> 	>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 	>
> 	>
> 	>
> 	>
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Serusers mailing list
> 	serusers at lists.iptel.org
> 	http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 	
> 
> 
> 
>