[Serusers] NAT & video eyebeam

[Greger V. Teigre]

Giovanni,
Interesting. The onsip config files have not been tested with eyebeam AFAIK. 
I would intuitively expect that the video INVITE should not contain a To 
tag, but I haven't looked into the RFC-specification for this case. Does 
anyone know?

Please note that nathelper/rtpproxy ver 0.9.0 do not have support for video 
streams (mediaproxy has). CVS head versions of both have that support. I do 
not know if backporting nathelper/rtpproxy to 0.9.0 involves any work, and 
I'm not aware of any efforts to do so. Maxim?
g-)

Giovanni Balasso wrote:
> Hi serusers
> I have problem with NAT and eyebeam video streams. I have all my
> audio issues with nat fixed using onsip-like config files, audio
> sessions work as they should with no problems. But when I try to send
> video with eyebeam during an audio session, nothing happens. Actually
> eyebeam sends another INVITE, ser processes this INVITE in
> loose_route section by force_rtp_proxy("l"), and rtpproxy logs the
> request trying to use the same ports of audio stream.
> Does anybody knows if this is the point (ie. rtpproxy should open new
> ports for video stream)? How should I tell rtpproxy to use other
> ports?
>
> One stranger thing is that when I call someone inside the same NAT
> video works even forcing use of rtpproxy.
>
>
> Thanks for help
>
>
> ser.cfg sections:
>
> if (loose_route()) {
>      if (has_totag() && (method=="INVITE" || method=="NOTIFY")) {
>         if (nat_uac_test("19")) {
>            setflag(6);
>            force_rport();
>            fix_nated_contact();
>         };
>         if (method=="INVITE") {
>            force_rtp_proxy("l");
>         };
>      };
>      t_on_reply("1");
>      t_relay();
>      break;
>   };
> }