[Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited

[Jan Janak]

The unstable CVS branch has been updated.

  Jan.

On 31-01 19:17, Dinesh wrote:
> Pls can you tell me where to get the update version.
> I have just downloaded the latest tarball from CVS 1.4 but it does not
> appear to be the one updated today.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dinesh
> 
>  
>  
> Dinesh Mahbubani
> The International Marketing Exchange Ltd.
> Email: dinesh at imelhk.com <mailto:dinesh at imelhk.com> 
> Tel: (852) 2541-2617
> Fax (852) 2543-4537
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Maxim Sobolev
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 5:56 PM
> To: Jan Janak
> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers