[Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication

[Bart Van Daal]

No, 

it's a standard ADSL router. I've reset the router to it's default
settings so it only does NAT, without DMZ, without any port being 
forwarded. 
I've tried again with port 5060 -> same problem
Tried with port 5070 -> everything works fine..

just out of curiousity, is there a logical explanation for this?

thanks,
Bart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan at bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan at bt.com] 
> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 14:13
> To: B.Vandaal at edpnet.net; serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> 
> Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For 
> example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it.
> 
> Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your 
> NAT gateway for port 5060.
> 
> Dhiraj
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org]On
> Behalf Of Bart Van Daal
> Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05
> To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> 
> 
> Great!!
> 
> this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 
> and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical 
> explanation for this?
> 
> thanks again Mike,
> Bart 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike at yes.net.ua]
> > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48
> > To: Bart Van Daal
> > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Bart,
> > 
> > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > BVD> Hi Mike,
> > 
> > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip..
> > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the
> > router, so I
> > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it
> > doesn't know
> > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but
> > that still
> > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further.
> > 
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike at yes.net.ua]
> > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56
> > >> To: Bart Van Daal
> > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Hello Bart,
> > >> 
> > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from
> > SER, that's
> > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest.
> > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148?
> > >> 
> > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline
> > port 5060
> > >> )
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> 
> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > >> Mike Tkachuk,     ph:380-3433-47067
> > >> YES ISP,          fx:380-3433-47067
> > >> Valova 17,        mike|a|yes.net.ua  
> > >> Kolomyia,         www.yes.net.ua
> > >> Ukraine 78200     FWD: 66518 
> > >> 
> > >>             19.07.2004 
> > >>           ICQ# 57698805
> > >>    MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > >> 
> > 
> > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart 
> :), so try to 
> > change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like:
> > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it.
> > 
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > Mike Tkachuk,     ph:380-3433-47067
> > YES ISP,          fx:380-3433-47067
> > Valova 17,        mike|a|yes.net.ua  
> > Kolomyia,         www.yes.net.ua
> > Ukraine 78200     FWD: 66518 
> > 
> >             19.07.2004 
> >           ICQ# 57698805
> >    MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>