Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-10-02 Thread RobertT
Hi folks!

Suddenly I found this
http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-dev/2009-February/002015.htmltopic
and that explains a lot.
From there I see that sofia sends refresher messages for NATed client in
order to check if it still alive.
It means I have problems in my client. Sorry for the mess.

Cheers, Robert.
___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-10-01 Thread RobertT
I am still experiencing problem with lost media in conference on a client
behind NAT.
This is what I've done - disabled VAD on a NATed client and asked my friend
to produce lots of animal sounds in order to keep channel busy. But at the
end of minute sounds of wild nature disapeared again. We reproduced that
without security with tcp SIP transport and got the same result.
Then I started to dig into SIP trace and this is what I found.
This client (behind NAT) recieve subsequent INVITE message from FS which
seem to destroy dialog and causes client app to close media stream after a
session being established normally. I performed the same call from box with
public ip and saw no subsequent INVITE's from FS. How come FS sends an
INVITE message to already connected client? Is it OK? Should client handle
this normally?

Below is client's SIP trace:

INVITE sip:1.conference...@74.208.167.44:5081;transport=TLS SIP/2.0
...
User-Agent: DoxWox SIP user agent
..

SIP/2.0 100 Trying
..
User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-14953M
..

SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required
..
User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-14953M
..

ACK sip:1.conference...@74.208.167.44:5081;transport=TLS SIP/2.0
..

SIP/2.0 100 Trying
..
User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-14953M
..

SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
..
User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-14953M
..

SIP/2.0 200 OK
..
User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-14953M
..

ACK sip:1.conference...@74.208.167.44:5081;transport=tls SIP/2.0
..

*Finally, this message cause media stream closing*
INVITE sip:1...@87.184.52.45:64183;transport=tls SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 74.208.167.44:5081;branch=z9hG4bK8269NDyXQNjyH
Max-Forwards: 70
From: 
sip:1.conference...@74.208.167.44sip%3a1.conference...@74.208.167.44;tag=vQH234QtN2U8Q

To: sip:1...@74.208.167.44
sip%3a1...@74.208.167.44;tag=3a231ba86c894ceca81d5021b68d3b6c

Call-ID: 37edc38329f64fe98c36cc0a6ddcbd9d
CSeq: 121093810 INVITE
Contact: sip:1.conference...@74.208.167.44:5081;transport=tls
User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-14953M
Allow: INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, OPTIONS, MESSAGE, UPDATE, INFO, REGISTER,
REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: timer, precondition, path, replaces
Session-Expires: 120;refresher=uac
Min-SE: 120
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Disposition: session
Content-Length: 340
v=0
o=FreeSWITCH 1254396503 1254396504 IN IP4 74.208.167.44
s=FreeSWITCH
c=IN IP4 74.208.167.44
t=0 0
m=audio 27726 RTP/SAVP 103 101
a=rtpmap:103 speex/16000
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:101 0-16
a=silenceSupp:off - - - -
a=ptime:20
a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80
inline:J6x2UgRVUY8GfbwjCuyyttrtnXnwwuWA9Pt+o3VW
___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-10-01 Thread RobertT
And here is a short piece of log from the server side:
...
nua(): refersh session after 62 seconds (in [55..65])...
send INVITE ...
rcv OK...
send ACK...
rcv BYE...

I see now that sdp for natted client has additional lines in OK response
compared to client with public ip.
Session-Expires: 120;refresher=uas
Min-SE: 120

How come that they differs? And how do I resolve this situation? Should
client handle these refresher messages normally?

Best regards, Robert.
___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


[Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-09-29 Thread RobertT
I am a bit confused with what's going on in a following scenario.

I have a public FS server with a public conference, that clients are
connecting to with my softphone. All of this softphones have STUN option
enabled and working, effectively resolving client's public IP address. They
also have ICE enabled (but I guess it's not relevant here, since FS doesn't
do ICE). Also, media trafic is secured with SRTP.

The problem is when one client connects from port-restricted NAT into a
conference he can hear sound for some time and he can be heard by other
participants, but after awhile sound is gone and neither he hear anything
nor he can be heard.
Where is the problem? Is it NAT, closing RTP port after some silence period
from client? I tried to start conference with waste flag, but without
success eventually.

The very same person can be contacted through this FS with direct call
(being established in proxy_media mode) without any problems, but this is
where ICE stuff starts doing its' magic, I guess.

Maybe I should try the same with SRTP disabled? Any help would be
apreciated!

Best regards, Robert.
___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-09-29 Thread Jason White
RobertT siniy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Where is the problem? Is it NAT, closing RTP port after some silence period
 from client? 

It could be a time-out, i.e., the nat router isn't keeping the port
translation alive.

I don't like nat at all. As more people migrate to IPv6 the problem will
gradually go away.


___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-09-29 Thread RobertT
Are there ways to escape this timeouts exchanging RTP with FS? Why didn't
waste flag help? Maybe I should flood channel in both directions? Will CNG
on a client side be a good descision? =)
___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-09-29 Thread Dmitry Kadantsev
ты все еще наблюдаешь эту проблему?
я думал она уже решена...

эни вей, я уже приехал и сделаю скоро воторой IP нам для собственного
STUN-сервера.

--
Best regards,
Dmitry Kadantsev

http://www.doxwox.com - Best web meeting and online collaboration tool.


On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, RobertT siniy...@gmail.com wrote:

 I am a bit confused with what's going on in a following scenario.

 I have a public FS server with a public conference, that clients are
 connecting to with my softphone. All of this softphones have STUN option
 enabled and working, effectively resolving client's public IP address. They
 also have ICE enabled (but I guess it's not relevant here, since FS doesn't
 do ICE). Also, media trafic is secured with SRTP.

 The problem is when one client connects from port-restricted NAT into a
 conference he can hear sound for some time and he can be heard by other
 participants, but after awhile sound is gone and neither he hear anything
 nor he can be heard.
 Where is the problem? Is it NAT, closing RTP port after some silence period
 from client? I tried to start conference with waste flag, but without
 success eventually.

 The very same person can be contacted through this FS with direct call
 (being established in proxy_media mode) without any problems, but this is
 where ICE stuff starts doing its' magic, I guess.

 Maybe I should try the same with SRTP disabled? Any help would be
 apreciated!

 Best regards, Robert.

 ___
 FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
 FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
 http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
 UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
 http://www.freeswitch.org


___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-09-29 Thread RobertT
в том то все и дело что с тобой мы эту проблему вроде как решили, а у Юры ее
никогда не было. и тут на тебе...
___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org


Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT

2009-09-29 Thread Michael Jerris
Most likely the client NAT is cutting off the translation due to no  
traffic.  This could be because the client is not sending any traffic,  
regardless of settings you set on FreeSWITCH.  Try disabling all vad  
and dtx on your soft phone to see if this helps.  Also, your email  
seems to indicate that you have solved the problem for yourself and  
others have not had the problem.  Is anyone still experiencing this  
issue?

Mike



___
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org