[Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Background: -- I use an ATA (Analogue Telephone Adapter, a sip based unit) connected to a standard handset, to my landline and to a cordless unit. This works even when my computers are not booted and allows me to make and accept voip calls away from my desktop. Also I prefer a conventional handset sometimes. The ATA is upstream of my computers so that it can give its voip ports priority when a call (via the ATA) is in progress. [Cable modem] [ATA intercepting ports 5004,5060] [Router] === [local network] I also use ekiga for several reasons including the ability to register simultaneously with several sip servers, and I like to use a headset and have my hands free on most occasions. If I used a webcam, that would be another reason. On my various computers, I set ekiga to use ports other than those used by the ATA. On the machine that I am using to send this email, ekiga is set to use rtc ports 5010:5059 and udp ports 5062:5100, for example. Problem All of this works fine, except for one minor problem which is the point of this email. Ekiga --> Preferences-->Protocols --> Network settings is set to STUN. When I start ekiga, it registers with the sip servers properly, but then calls fail, or partially fail, often with "Abnormal call termination". However, if I navigate through the preferences as above and set and reset the STUN, there is a brief message on the screen about the STUN being partially blocked (presumably it is detecting the ports used by the ATA). Thereafter, ekiga works properly until it is restarted. I assume that ekiga is resetting its port usage when it detects that not all the ports it expects are open? Should it not have seen the ports set via gconf-editor, or is there something I am missing? Otherwise should it not make what ever check is involved on tinkering with the STUN setting in Preferences automatically at start up? You will gather that I have not looked at the source :-) I realize that my arrangment of at least two voip devices trying to "talk through each other" is probably unusual which is why ekiga does not handle the situation quite seemlessly, but I think that what I am doing is not unreasonable and may become quite common. And it is working pretty well even now. Suggestion -- Ekiga makes the STUN checks at startup as described above? A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Unfortunately, I can't help you with your problem. But I have been trying to find a reasonably priced ATA to use with Ekiga. Which one are you using and where could I get one? I'm looking to be able to use Ekiga as well as SIP telephone providers with an ATA. I've been looking for an ATA that is programmable as well as being able to work without having to have my computer on. Your ATA seems to be exactly what I've been looking for. Any help would be greatly appreciated. George ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Le mercredi 03 janvier 2007 à 22:57 +, ael a écrit : > Background: > -- > > I use an ATA (Analogue Telephone Adapter, a sip based unit) connected to > a standard handset, to my landline and to a cordless unit. This works > even when my computers are not booted and allows me to make and accept > voip calls away from my desktop. Also I prefer a conventional handset > sometimes. > > The ATA is upstream of my computers so that it can give its voip ports > priority when a call (via the ATA) is in progress. > > [Cable modem] [ATA intercepting ports 5004,5060] [Router] === > [local network] > > I also use ekiga for several reasons including the ability to register > simultaneously with several sip servers, and I like to use a headset and > have my hands free on most occasions. If I used a webcam, that would be > another reason. > > On my various computers, I set ekiga to use ports other than those used > by the ATA. On the machine that I am using to send this email, ekiga is > set to use rtc ports 5010:5059 and udp ports 5062:5100, for example. > > Problem > > All of this works fine, except for one minor problem which is the point > of this email. > > Ekiga --> Preferences-->Protocols --> Network settings is set to STUN. > > When I start ekiga, it registers with the sip servers properly, but then > calls fail, or partially fail, often with "Abnormal call termination". > However, if I navigate through the preferences as above and set and > reset the STUN, there is a brief message on the screen about the STUN > being partially blocked (presumably it is detecting the ports used by > the ATA). Thereafter, ekiga works properly until it is restarted. > > I assume that ekiga is resetting its port usage when it detects that not > all the ports it expects are open? Should it not have seen the ports set > via gconf-editor, or is there something I am missing? Otherwise should > it not make what ever check is involved on tinkering with the STUN > setting in Preferences automatically at start up? You will gather that I > have not looked at the source :-) > > I realize that my arrangment of at least two voip devices trying to > "talk through each other" is probably unusual which is why ekiga does > not handle the situation quite seemlessly, but I think that what I am > doing is not unreasonable and may become quite common. And it is working > pretty well even now. > > Suggestion > -- > > Ekiga makes the STUN checks at startup as described above? > It does. However, if STUN detects "Partially blocked NAT", it is because the forwarded ports on the router do not correspond to the ports used by Ekiga. Make sure the forwarding is correct. Make sure the ATA is not using the same port range. Also, you could use IP Translation instead of STUN when using port forwarding. -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\ Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Damien Sandras wrote: > Le mercredi 03 janvier 2007 à 22:57 +, ael a écrit : > >>Background: >>-- >> >>I use an ATA (Analogue Telephone Adapter, a sip based unit) connected to >>a standard handset, to my landline and to a cordless unit. This works >>even when my computers are not booted and allows me to make and accept >>voip calls away from my desktop. Also I prefer a conventional handset >>sometimes. >> >>The ATA is upstream of my computers so that it can give its voip ports >>priority when a call (via the ATA) is in progress. >> >>[Cable modem] [ATA intercepting ports 5004,5060] [Router] === >>[local network] >> >>I also use ekiga for several reasons including the ability to register >>simultaneously with several sip servers, and I like to use a headset and >>have my hands free on most occasions. If I used a webcam, that would be >>another reason. >> >>On my various computers, I set ekiga to use ports other than those used >>by the ATA. On the machine that I am using to send this email, ekiga is >>set to use rtc ports 5010:5059 and udp ports 5062:5100, for example. >> >>Problem >> >>All of this works fine, except for one minor problem which is the point >>of this email. >> >>Ekiga --> Preferences-->Protocols --> Network settings is set to STUN. >> >>When I start ekiga, it registers with the sip servers properly, but then >>calls fail, or partially fail, often with "Abnormal call termination". >>However, if I navigate through the preferences as above and set and >>reset the STUN, there is a brief message on the screen about the STUN >>being partially blocked (presumably it is detecting the ports used by >>the ATA). Thereafter, ekiga works properly until it is restarted. >> >>I assume that ekiga is resetting its port usage when it detects that not >>all the ports it expects are open? Should it not have seen the ports set >>via gconf-editor, or is there something I am missing? Otherwise should >>it not make what ever check is involved on tinkering with the STUN >>setting in Preferences automatically at start up? You will gather that I >>have not looked at the source :-) >> >>I realize that my arrangment of at least two voip devices trying to >>"talk through each other" is probably unusual which is why ekiga does >>not handle the situation quite seemlessly, but I think that what I am >>doing is not unreasonable and may become quite common. And it is working >>pretty well even now. >> >>Suggestion >>-- >> >>Ekiga makes the STUN checks at startup as described above? >> > > > It does. > > However, if STUN detects "Partially blocked NAT", it is because the > forwarded ports on the router do not correspond to the ports used by > Ekiga. > > Make sure the forwarding is correct. > Make sure the ATA is not using the same port range. Thanks Damien. I thought that I had things set up properly, but I will recheck. My situation is a slightly more complex than I reported ( I wanted to present the essence for simplicity and clarity). The ATA incorporates a router, NAT and so forth. And then feeds the main router. > Also, you could use IP Translation instead of STUN when using port > forwarding. IP transalation did not work for me, but I may have been too naive in the way I expected it to work. I will experiment further. A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
George Boyd wrote: > Unfortunately, I can't help you with your problem. But I have been > trying to find a reasonably priced ATA to use with Ekiga. Which one are > you using and where could I get one. Well I am using a Grandstream Handytone 486 which fairly cheap and widely available. There are several variants: http://www.grandstream.com/y-htseries.htm And the manual is here http://www.grandstream.com/user_manuals/HandyTone-486UserManual.pdf . I don't know where you are geographically but www.sipgate.co.uk is one place that stocks the ATA 486. I think some voip vendors set the adaptors up for use only with their servers so check that out. I would avoid them, but I imagine that you can reset to the factory default as described in the manual and then set your own administrator password. I would guess that most ATA's would be sufficiently programmable to work with ekiga, but I only have experience with the 486. There are a various routers combined with ATAs on the market now that might be of interest. They came out after I had selected the Handytone. > I've been looking for an ATA that is programmable as well as being able > to work without having to have my computer on. Your ATA seems to be > exactly what I've been looking for. Hope that is some help. I think we are still just on topic.. A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
ael wrote:
> Damien Sandras wrote:
>>>
>>>Ekiga makes the STUN checks at startup as described above?
>>>
>>
>>
>>It does.
>>
>>However, if STUN detects "Partially blocked NAT", it is because the
>>forwarded ports on the router do not correspond to the ports used by
>>Ekiga.
>>
>>Make sure the forwarding is correct.
>>Make sure the ATA is not using the same port range.
>
>
> Thanks Damien. I thought that I had things set up properly, but I will
> recheck. My situation is a slightly more complex than I reported ( I
> wanted to present the essence for simplicity and clarity). The ATA
> incorporates a router, NAT and so forth. And then feeds the main router.
I have done some experimenting with ekiga with debugging, but have not
got much further. {Apologies for wrap-around from this mailer in the
debug messages below.}
2007/01/04 22:56:58.748 0:05.734ekiga Set TCP
port range to 3:30010
2007/01/04 22:56:58.798 0:05.792ekiga Set RTP
port range to 5010:5059
2007/01/04 22:56:58.863 0:05.849ekiga Set UDP
port range to 5062:5100
The above look ok. My main router has no logged any relevant blocked
packets. The ATA only exposes its SIP (set to 5060) and RTP (set to
5004) ports. I am now wondering about 3:30010...
The "magic" manipulation of the Network setting was logged as
2007/01/04 22:57:41.372 0:48.346GMStunClient:0853daa0 OPAL
STUN server "stun.ekiga.net" replies Cone NAT, external IP 86.3.137.146
A failed call without that "magic" has debug entries like:
2007/01/04 23:12:12.923 1:13.466GMURLHandler:084b7e38 PCSS
Outgoing call routed to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for Call[1]-EP[Default]
2007/01/04 23:12:12.925 1:13.474GMURLHandler:084b7e38 SIP
SetUpConnection:
2007/01/04 23:12:22.969 1:23.512GMURLHandler:084b7e38 OpalUDP
Started connect to 86.64.162.35:5060
2007/01/04 23:12:22.994 1:23.537GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket
anyway.
2007/01/04 23:12:22.996 1:23.539GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP socket either.
2007/01/04 23:12:22.997 1:23.541GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket
anyway.
[.. snip..]
2007/01/04 23:12:23.380 1:23.934GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP socket either.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.433 1:23.988GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket
anyway.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.508 1:24.063GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP socket either.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.562 1:24.116OnRelease:8528118 OpalCon
Media stream threads closed.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.613 1:24.156SIP Transport:8527db0 OpalUDP
Error on connection read select.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.619 1:24.163SIP Transport:8527db0 SIP
Read thread finished.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.626 1:24.180OnRelease:8528118 OpalCon
Media stream threads closed.
2007/01/04 23:12:23.682 1:24.237GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket
anyway.
[..snip..]
2007/01/04 23:12:25.713 1:26.267GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP
STUN could not create RTP socket either.
2007/01/04 23:12:25.767 1:26.322GMURLHandler:084b7e38 SIP
No authentication information present
2007/01/04 23:12:25.832 1:26.386GMURLHandler:084b7e38 SIP
Did not start INVITE transaction on
udp$86.64.162.35:5060
2007/01/04 23:12:25.909 1:26.463GMURLHandler:084b7e38 SIP
Could not write to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
2007/01/04 23:12:25.962 1:26.524GMURLHandler:084b7e38
SetUpCall succeeded
2007/01/04 23:12:26.013 1:26.567OnRelease:852cd30 OpalCon
Media stream threads closed.
-
I am not sure if the above messages suggest blocked ports: I guess that
fits the failure to create the sockets. Since they are RTP sockets and
those are open, I am not clear what is happening.
I can live with the present situation, but would like to understand what
is failing. But it is not urgent.
A E Lawrence
___
ekiga-list mailing list
ekiga-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Le jeudi 04 janvier 2007 à 23:20 +, ael a écrit : [...] > The "magic" manipulation of the Network setting was logged as > > 2007/01/04 22:57:41.372 0:48.346GMStunClient:0853daa0 OPAL > STUN server "stun.ekiga.net" replies Cone NAT, external IP 86.3.137.146 > > A failed call without that "magic" has debug entries like: > > > 2007/01/04 23:12:12.923 1:13.466GMURLHandler:084b7e38 PCSS > Outgoing call routed to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for Call[1]-EP[Default] > 2007/01/04 23:12:12.925 1:13.474GMURLHandler:084b7e38 SIP > SetUpConnection: > 2007/01/04 23:12:22.969 1:23.512GMURLHandler:084b7e38 OpalUDP > Started connect to 86.64.162.35:5060 > 2007/01/04 23:12:22.994 1:23.537GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP > STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket > anyway. > 2007/01/04 23:12:22.996 1:23.539GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP > STUN could not create RTP socket either. > 2007/01/04 23:12:22.997 1:23.541GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP > STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket > anyway. > When doing a call, the STUN protocol is used to determine which ports will be used by your router for outgoing traffic, that way, the remote application knows where to send back the data so that it is relayed to your computer. The above message just tells that STUN can not determine those ports. I have no idea why triggering a STUN detection allows determining them again. It doesn't make sense :( Check if there is not something to configure at the router level. -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\ Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Damien Sandras wrote: > Le jeudi 04 janvier 2007 à 23:20 +, ael a écrit : > > [...] > > > >>The "magic" manipulation of the Network setting was logged as >> >>2007/01/04 22:57:41.372 0:48.346GMStunClient:0853daa0 OPAL >>STUN server "stun.ekiga.net" replies Cone NAT, external IP 86.3.137.146 >> >>A failed call without that "magic" has debug entries like: >> >> >>2007/01/04 23:12:12.923 1:13.466GMURLHandler:084b7e38 PCSS >>Outgoing call routed to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for Call[1]-EP[Default] >>2007/01/04 23:12:12.925 1:13.474GMURLHandler:084b7e38 SIP >>SetUpConnection: >>2007/01/04 23:12:22.969 1:23.512GMURLHandler:084b7e38 OpalUDP >>Started connect to 86.64.162.35:5060 >>2007/01/04 23:12:22.994 1:23.537GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP >>STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket >>anyway. >>2007/01/04 23:12:22.996 1:23.539GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP >>STUN could not create RTP socket either. >>2007/01/04 23:12:22.997 1:23.541GMURLHandler:084b7e38 RTP >>STUN could not create RTP/RTCP socket pair; trying to create RTP socket >>anyway. >> > > > When doing a call, the STUN protocol is used to determine which ports > will be used by your router for outgoing traffic, that way, the remote > application knows where to send back the data so that it is relayed to > your computer. > > The above message just tells that STUN can not determine those ports. > I have no idea why triggering a STUN detection allows determining them > again. It doesn't make sense :( > > Check if there is not something to configure at the router level. I played for a fair time with the router settings, but I think the problem is that I don't know what the HandyTone ATA is actually doing. It is at the front end just after the cable modem so I think that is where the foible is hiding. Rarely I saw the STUN reporting symmetric NAT and I gather that the STUN protocol can be nondeterministic in such situations. My tests were with only 1 active machine on the network, so the STUN server might be seeing the ATA as one host and the ekiga machine as another. I will run etherreal during a session to see whether this helps: I might forward a log here in case someone can help with interpretation. But of course, I will only see the traffic behind the router. Unless I rearrange the network for testing purposes which I don't have time to do for now. All that said, it seems to be quite reliable to use the "magic": start ekiga, change the network protocol from STUN and back to STUN and then everything works. I haven't tried port forwarding because I would like to be able to use ekiga on any local machine. I suspect that would work if I put the ATA behind, rather than in front of, the main router and then forward specific ports to the ATA. But if an incoming call arrived while I was using all my bandwidth for a major download, I suspect that the voip call quality would suffer (and I do get a few problems even now). A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 13:53 +, ael a écrit : [...] > > > > Check if there is not something to configure at the router level. > > I played for a fair time with the router settings, but I think the > problem is that I don't know what the HandyTone ATA is actually doing. > It is at the front end just after the cable modem so I think that is > where the foible is hiding. Rarely I saw the STUN reporting symmetric > NAT and I gather that the STUN protocol can be nondeterministic in such > situations. My tests were with only 1 active machine on the network, so > the STUN server might be seeing the ATA as one host and the ekiga > machine as another. > Indeed, in such a case, STUN is non deterministic. > I will run etherreal during a session to see whether this helps: I might > forward a log here in case someone can help with interpretation. But of > course, I will only see the traffic behind the router. Unless I > rearrange the network for testing purposes which I don't have time to do > for now. > > All that said, it seems to be quite reliable to use the "magic": start > ekiga, change the network protocol from STUN and back to STUN and then > everything works. > I suppose that in that case you can not be called from the outside, but I can not confirm that. > I haven't tried port forwarding because I would like to be able to use > ekiga on any local machine. I suspect that would work if I put the ATA > behind, rather than in front of, the main router and then forward > specific ports to the ATA. But if an incoming call arrived while I was > using all my bandwidth for a major download, I suspect that the voip > call quality would suffer (and I do get a few problems even now). Using sipproxd might be a good idea. I'm not sure putting the ATA in front of the router helps with bandwidth, except if there is an internal traffic shaper. -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\ Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Damien Sandras wrote: > Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 13:53 +, ael a écrit : >>I played for a fair time with the router settings, but I think the >>problem is that I don't know what the HandyTone ATA is actually doing. >>It is at the front end just after the cable modem so I think that is >>where the foible is hiding. Rarely I saw the STUN reporting symmetric >>NAT and I gather that the STUN protocol can be nondeterministic in such >>situations. My tests were with only 1 active machine on the network, so >>the STUN server might be seeing the ATA as one host and the ekiga >>machine as another. >> > > > Indeed, in such a case, STUN is non deterministic. > > >>I will run etherreal during a session to see whether this helps: Damien, I am seeing some very odd things in the ethereal logs with ekiga sending malformed packets to a strange address in a few cases. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what I am seeing. I am testing on an debian i386 sarge system using 2.0.2-1.ekiga.sarge.1885. And $ ekiga --version Gnome ekiga 2.0.2 Before I look further, are there are known bugs in this version? Should I backport a later version, presumably 2.0.3, before going any further? A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Le samedi 06 janvier 2007 à 00:05 +, ael a écrit : > Damien Sandras wrote: > > Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 13:53 +, ael a écrit : > > >>I played for a fair time with the router settings, but I think the > >>problem is that I don't know what the HandyTone ATA is actually doing. > >>It is at the front end just after the cable modem so I think that is > >>where the foible is hiding. Rarely I saw the STUN reporting symmetric > >>NAT and I gather that the STUN protocol can be nondeterministic in such > >>situations. My tests were with only 1 active machine on the network, so > >>the STUN server might be seeing the ATA as one host and the ekiga > >>machine as another. > >> > > > > > > Indeed, in such a case, STUN is non deterministic. > > > > > >>I will run etherreal during a session to see whether this helps: > > Damien, > > I am seeing some very odd things in the ethereal logs with ekiga sending > malformed packets to a strange address in a few cases. Perhaps I am > misinterpreting what I am seeing. I am testing on an debian i386 sarge > system using 2.0.2-1.ekiga.sarge.1885. And > > $ ekiga --version > Gnome ekiga 2.0.2 > > Before I look further, are there are known bugs in this version? Should > I backport a later version, presumably 2.0.3, before going any further? > I don't think so... Damien ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Damien Sandras wrote: > Le samedi 06 janvier 2007 à 00:05 +, ael a écrit : > >>Damien Sandras wrote: >> >>>Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 13:53 +, ael a écrit : >> I played for a fair time with the router settings, but I think the problem is that I don't know what the HandyTone ATA is actually doing. It is at the front end just after the cable modem so I think that is where the foible is hiding. Rarely I saw the STUN reporting symmetric NAT and I gather that the STUN protocol can be nondeterministic in such situations. My tests were with only 1 active machine on the network, so the STUN server might be seeing the ATA as one host and the ekiga machine as another. >>> >>> >>>Indeed, in such a case, STUN is non deterministic. >>> >>> >>> I will run etherreal during a session to see whether this helps: >> >>Damien, >> >>I am seeing some very odd things in the ethereal logs with ekiga sending >> malformed packets to a strange address in a few cases. Perhaps I am >>misinterpreting what I am seeing. I am testing on an debian i386 sarge >>system using 2.0.2-1.ekiga.sarge.1885. And >> >>$ ekiga --version >>Gnome ekiga 2.0.2 >> >>Before I look further, are there are known bugs in this version? Should >>I backport a later version, presumably 2.0.3, before going any further? >> > > > I don't think so... Having attempted the back port of 2.0.3, I got as far as opal, and then checked with Kilian Krause over a buglet in the debian src package. After a few further explorations and help from Kilian, I decided that it was a far larger job than I had realized. I gather that you too had decided that a backport to sarge wasn't worth the effort given its short remaining stable life. As a result, I now need to restore my sarge box to a consistent state which looks as if it will take some more time and effort :-) So I won't be able to report further for the time being. A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Damien Sandras wrote: > Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 13:53 +, ael a écrit : > > [...] > > >>>Check if there is not something to configure at the router level. >> >>I played for a fair time with the router settings, but I think the >>problem is that I don't know what the HandyTone ATA is actually doing. >>It is at the front end just after the cable modem so I think that is >>where the foible is hiding. Rarely I saw the STUN reporting symmetric >>NAT and I gather that the STUN protocol can be nondeterministic in such >>situations. My tests were with only 1 active machine on the network, so >>the STUN server might be seeing the ATA as one host and the ekiga >>machine as another. >> > > > Indeed, in such a case, STUN is non deterministic. > > >>I will run etherreal during a session to see whether this helps: I might >>forward a log here in case someone can help with interpretation. But of >>course, I will only see the traffic behind the router. I have now captured the STUN traffic from ekiga 2.0.2. [I have sent a copy of the dump off list.] Initially there are 14 packets exchanged. This is while ekiga is starting up. At this point attempted calls to, say [EMAIL PROTECTED], fail usually with abnormal call termination. Visiting ekiga-> Preferences -> Protocols -> Network Settings and simply clicking the [Apply] button (STUN is already selected) results in another 24 packets being exchanged between ekiga and the STUN servers. [Packets 15 to 38 in the dump]. After this "magic" ekiga works well. I hope that this throws some light on the situation. A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
ael a écrit : > Initially there are 14 packets exchanged. This is while ekiga is > starting up. At this point attempted calls to, say [EMAIL PROTECTED], fail > usually with abnormal call termination. You mean ekiga wasn't registered yet to ekiga.net ? Snark ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Julien Puydt wrote: > ael a écrit : > >>Initially there are 14 packets exchanged. This is while ekiga is >>starting up. At this point attempted calls to, say [EMAIL PROTECTED], fail >>usually with abnormal call termination. > > > You mean ekiga wasn't registered yet to ekiga.net ? No. Normally there is no problem with registration. This was explained earlier in this thread. I suspect that the system is behaving in some respects at least as a symmetric NAT when the STUN protocol is nondeterministic, although I have not yet tried to analyse the STUN traffic: I am a newbie and need to read the relevant rfcs. I hope to find time to do that soon. Meanwhile, things work with this odd fix of "reactivating" the STUN setting. But it would be nice to understand what is happening and to get total reliability. I did say that the captured data was the STUN traffic: it was filtered so that only packets exchanged with the stun servers were collected. So the registration phase was not captured. A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Hi, Just thought I'd add my $0.02 on this. I have a set up of 3 machines (all running Ekiga) and 1 hard phone running behind a single OpenWrt router. To get this working I altered the port settings on Ekiga(s) using gconf-editor, and enabled both STUN and Proxy (fwdnat2.pulver.net). I have set each endpoint to use a set ports which is exclusive (doesn't overlap any of it's siblings). Each endpoint has seperate FWD numbers (for testing) and can call/message each other, albeit via going out to the internet and coming back in again. I think that I might have seen a similar message in the past I'll confirm later whether it happens if I turn off the proxying. Note on ports: You *HAVE* to set ranges... otherwise Ekiga gets upset. My IP hard-phone only needs 2 ports (SIP and RTP). I'm still trying to understand the port usage, but for a single endpoint it looks like you need: 1 SIP listener Port (ie. 5080) at least 2 (per reigistered/active account) UDP ports for SIP operation (ie. 5081:5089) - it seems that these are randomly randomly from this range as an account is registered/enabled. at least 2 (1 each direction) for RTP (ie. 8080:8089) - we'll need more once multi-line starts working... :-) The better solution for this many endpoints would be setting up my own SIP proxy on the router, but I'm being lazy. I see no value in placing your ATA upstream, it's ports should be exclusive anyhow. So your set up isn't that unusual ;-) Simon. ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Simon Wood wrote: > Hi, Just thought I'd add my $0.02 on this. I have a set up of 3 > machines (all running Ekiga) and 1 hard phone running behind a single > OpenWrt router. > > To get this working I altered the port settings on Ekiga(s) using > gconf-editor, and enabled both STUN and Proxy (fwdnat2.pulver.net). I > have set each endpoint to use a set ports which is exclusive (doesn't > overlap any of it's siblings). > > Each endpoint has seperate FWD numbers (for testing) and can > call/message each other, albeit via going out to the internet and > coming back in again. But my ATA (= hard phone?) is *upstream* of the routers (for a reason) which may be the crucial difference. If I moved the ATA downstream, I would expect the problem to go away, but I haven't tried this so far. Otherwise my setup is just the same. Different proxy , but that should not matter. > I think that I might have seen a similar message in the past I'll > confirm later whether it happens if I turn off the proxying. Unless we are talking of a different message, turning off proxying will eliminate the message :-) > Note on ports: You *HAVE* to set ranges... otherwise Ekiga gets > upset. My IP hard-phone only needs 2 ports (SIP and RTP). So does mine, and yes all my different ekigas have different non overlapping port settings which are distinct from those of the ATA. > I see no value in placing your ATA upstream, it's ports should be > exclusive anyhow. You have missed the point, It's not the ports: it's bandwidth. I have 256Kb/s upstream and 2Mb/s downstream on a broadband connection, but I still get occasional breakups even when the ATA alone is engaged in a call. If it was downstream of a router, it would not be able to give priority to its own voip packets during a call. Oh, and I can just power the modem and ATA to maintain voip with no other machines running for environmental reasons when I don't need the rest of the network active. As I have said before everything seems to work 95% of the time, but requires this touching of the STUN setting in ekiga instances before they can make calls. It is not a big deal, but it would be nice to understand what is going on. > So your set up isn't that unusual Maybe having the ATA up front is the unusual part? A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Coexistence of ekiga with an ATA
Damien Sandras wrote: > Le mercredi 03 janvier 2007 à 22:57 +, ael a écrit : > >>Background: >>-- >> >>I use an ATA (Analogue Telephone Adapter, a sip based unit) connected to >>a standard handset, to my landline and to a cordless unit. This works >>even when my computers are not booted and allows me to make and accept >>voip calls away from my desktop. Also I prefer a conventional handset >>sometimes. >> >>The ATA is upstream of my computers so that it can give its voip ports >>priority when a call (via the ATA) is in progress. >> >>[Cable modem] [ATA intercepting ports 5004,5060] [Router] === >>[local network] >> >>I also use ekiga for several reasons including the ability to register >>simultaneously with several sip servers, and I like to use a headset and >>have my hands free on most occasions. If I used a webcam, that would be >>another reason. >> >>On my various computers, I set ekiga to use ports other than those used >>by the ATA. On the machine that I am using to send this email, ekiga is >>set to use rtc ports 5010:5059 and udp ports 5062:5100, for example. >> >>Problem >> >>All of this works fine, except for one minor problem which is the point >>of this email. >> >>Ekiga --> Preferences-->Protocols --> Network settings is set to STUN. >> >>When I start ekiga, it registers with the sip servers properly, but then >>calls fail, or partially fail, often with "Abnormal call termination". >>However, if I navigate through the preferences as above and set and >>reset the STUN, there is a brief message on the screen about the STUN >>being partially blocked (presumably it is detecting the ports used by >>the ATA). Thereafter, ekiga works properly until it is restarted. [..snip..] > However, if STUN detects "Partially blocked NAT", it is because the > forwarded ports on the router do not correspond to the ports used by > Ekiga. I have now solved the problem. It was nothing to do with the ATA. Rather it was the rule that I was using in the router (a DLInk DI-604, although I think many routers will behave similarly). By default the router seems to behave as a symmetric CONE. For those who have not read the relevant RFCs this essentially means that the router will bounce all incoming packets except those matching precisely (ie, both port and address) a previous outgoing packet. The STUN protocol allows one to "punch a hole" in the NAT (router) so that certain incoming packets can be accepted without a precisely matching outgoing packet. In particular the "other end" of a voip call. But this will not work in general for a symmetric CONE. One option is to use a rule for port forwarding (to a specific machine), but that means that only that one machine on a local network can use ekiga. But most NAT/routers support "application rules" which open a restricted hole dynamically when triggered by particular ports. But the documentation that I have seen is very rudimentary, and does not really explain just what happens. After playing with ethereal to watch the traffic, I realized that if I used a rule that triggered on the STUN ports ( 3478 & 3479 ) and then opened the sip and rtp ports, the STUN protocol would then find a full CONE NAT. That is what I did and everything now works. My rule has Trigger ports: 3478-3479 Public ports: 3478-3479, 5000-5100 Protocol: UDP I am not sure that I need to open all those public ports: I may experiment further, but I don't think it will do any harm. I hope this is useful to others. I haven't found any other references to triggering on STUN ports while I was googling for help on solving the problem. A E Lawrence ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
