Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP.

> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 6:31 AM > To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised > public IP. > > Hi, > not sure if I understood it right but, have you defined the > advertised_address ? Th

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP.

31 AM > To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised > public IP. > > Hi, > not sure if I understood it right but, have you defined the > advertised_address ? That should be used in Via and RR as well: >

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP.

] On Behalf Of Daniel Grotti Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 6:31 AM To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP. Hi, not sure if I understood it right but, have you defined the advertised_address ? That should be used

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP.

Hi, not sure if I understood it right but, have you defined the advertised_address ? That should be used in Via and RR as well: https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/4.4.x/core#advertised_address Daniel On 12/29/2016 12:09 AM, Pranathi Venkatayogi wrote: I implemented full NAT logic as

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP.

I implemented full NAT logic as per the sample config. Still unable to resolve the issue. How do I let Kamailio change record_route header to use public ip address? Please help!!! (attached are latest scripts) From: Pranathi Venkatayogi Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:39 PM To:

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT, ACK to private IP not advertised public IP.

Hi, I am encountering the same problem described in google groups. However I dint not find any resolution hence writing again. 200 OK sent from the server has private Ip in its record route. As you see below, though the

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio IMS NAT issue: PRACK/ACK RURI changing in P-CSCF

Hi Franz, Sorry for the misunderstanding, none of the nodes are "local only". Its a private address that they're listening to. As for the issue, source UE sends correct ACK with the right RURI (containing the correct IP and port of the destination UE). But P-CSCF strips that alias parameter

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio IMS NAT issue: PRACK/ACK RURI changing in P-CSCF

Hello Owais, > I have All the CSCFs on the same IP using different ports. > P-CSCF advertises a public IP. Rest of the nodes including I-CSCF and S-CSCF > listen local only. What is the reason that the rest of the nodes including I-CSCF and S-CSCF listen local only? I am not familiar with such

[SR-Users] Kamailio ims nat issue: PRACK/ACK ruri changing in p-cscf

Hi all, My scenario is as follows: I have All the CSCFs on the same IP using different ports. P-CSCF advertises a public IP. Rest of the nodes including I-CSCF and S-CSCF listen local only. Behavior: When an ACK or PRACK goes from P-CSCF to S-CSCF, the RURI changes such that alias parameter is

[SR-Users] Kamailio IMS NAT issue: PRACK/ACK RURI changing in P-CSCF

Hi all, My scenario is as follows: I have All the CSCFs on the same IP using different ports. P-CSCF advertises a public IP. Rest of the nodes including I-CSCF and S-CSCF listen local only. Behavior: When an ACK or PRACK goes from P-CSCF to S-CSCF, the RURI changes such that alias parameter is

[SR-Users] Kamailio ims nat issue: PRACK/ACK ruri changing in p-cscf

Hi all, My scenario is as follows: I have All the CSCFs on the same IP using different ports. P-CSCF advertises a public IP. Rest of the nodes including I-CSCF and S-CSCF listen local only. Behavior: When an ACK or PRACK goes from P-CSCF to S-CSCF, the RURI changes such that alias parameter

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio - Multiple NAT

The best way to see what is happening is to capture some packets on the Kamailio system on which calls happen and see if any IP address or port number issues exist in body of SIP messages or not. You can simple use Wireshark to see what is going on. Regards On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:58 PM,

[SR-Users] Kamailio - Multiple NAT

Hi guys, i'm going in trouble with multinat scenario and Kamailio J I've this scenario... Two kamailio boxes with the same configuration (KAM_A and KAM_B). Each box has a WIFI in AP_MODE with the same address (but different SSID obviously) 192.168.254.1. Finally there are 2

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hello, do you have port 5060 forwarding from firewall to kamailio local IP address? Cheers, Daniel On 17/03/16 08:24, Safdar Khan wrote: > Hello > I have been running kamailio on local network including rtpengine and > freeswitch. > Now i am configuring kamailio with my public IP(trying with

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hello I have been running kamailio on local network including rtpengine and freeswitch. Now i am configuring kamailio with my public IP(trying with stock kamailio configuration to get started) #define WITH_NAT listen=udp:192.168.3.32:5060 listen=tcp:192.168.3.32:5060 advertised_address=

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

When you are running Kamailio behind a NAT you should use advertise parameter of listen address. According to documentation " A typical use case for advertise address is when running SIP server behind a NAT/Firewall, when the local IP address (to be used for bind) is different than the public IP

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

Hello, I finally were able to run my Kamailio behind NAT but in order to accomplish that I included: listen=udp:SOURCE-IP:5060 advertise PUBLIC-IP:52548 52548 is the port my internet router change when doing NAT (5060->52548). I found this port sniffing traffic Conclusions at this point are:

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

Hello, it looks like you have a symmetric nat router, so the allocated port is randomly selected. If you don't control the nat router to set a static forwarding rule or it doesn't provide the option to set static forwarding, then you are pretty much left with sniffing the traffic to discover the

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

Hello, can you get the SIP trace with all the packets of such dialog outside of the NAT router? It will help to see the headers and based on that we may be able to provide a solution. Cheers, Daniel On 12/01/16 19:13, Nelson Migliaro wrote: > Thank you for your answer. > > The problem I have is

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

Thank you for your answer. The problem I have is with internet router doing to PAT to SIP port. I am already advertising public IP but unfortunately I cant know the public port I am using. 2015-12-28 18:17 GMT+01:00 Alexandru Covalschi <568...@gmail.com>: > AFAIK bye is usually sent to the

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

AFAIK bye is usually sent to the address stored in record_route. Try setting changing record_route() to record_route_preset("PUBLICIP:5060;nat=yes:) 2015-12-23 16:28 GMT+02:00 Nelson Migliaro : > > Hello, > > I am running Kamailio behind NAT. > > Kanailio has a private IP

[SR-Users] Kamailio and NAT

Hello, I am running Kamailio behind NAT. Kanailio has a private IP and I am relaying NAT to internet router. I am using: - #!define WITH_NAT - listen=udp:PRIVATE-IP:5060 advertise PUBLIC-IP:5060 - Patched RTP proxy including the advertise option And everything goes fine. I can make calls and

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - Wrong VIA Header

Hello, We are using Kamailio 4.2 and RTPEngine 3.3 hosted on a VM behind NAT in Google Cloud Engine. Asterisk 11 + Kamailio + RTPEngine are on the same machine and Kamailio is used as WebRTC Gateway. INVITES, that are rewritten by Kamailio look like the following: INVITE

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - Wrong VIA Header

Hello, On 03/11/14 10:43, Marko Seidenglanz wrote: Hello, We are using Kamailio 4.2 and RTPEngine 3.3 hosted on a VM behind NAT in Google Cloud Engine. Asterisk 11 + Kamailio + RTPEngine are on the same machine and Kamailio is used as WebRTC Gateway. INVITES, that are rewritten by

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT (Asterisk - Kamailio - RTPEngine - Browser)

Hello, I have a problem with the following configuration. I want to make calls from Asterisk to a browser using RTPEngine as relay. Everything works fine, if Kamailio is not natted (See kamailio_without_nat.log). If it's address is translated, then 200 OK responses from the browser don't seem

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT (Asterisk - Kamailio - RTPEngine - Browser)

Hello, I have a problem with the following configuration. I want to make calls from Asterisk to a browser using RTPEngine as relay. Everything works fine, if Kamailio is not natted (See kamailio_without_nat.log). If it's address is translated, then 200 OK responses from the browser don't seem

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT- alias issue

Thanks for advice/ My kamailio starts and now listening my external address, but I still see errors of tm module ERROR: tm [ut.h:272]: uri2dst2(): ERROR: uri2dst: bad_uri: sip.myserver.com Aug 3 07:45:31 Kamailio kamailio: ERROR: tm [uac.c:266]: t_uac_prepare(): t_uac: no socket found

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT- alias issue

Hello. I have Kamailio running behind NAT. It lesten eth0 with ip 192.168.0.3 and I have external IP that have domain name (for example sip.myserver.com). Register packets from clients comes from external IP. If I write at kamailio.cfg: alias=sip.myserver.com I see error at log - bad_uri

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT- alias issue

Hello Yuriy, If I write at kamailio.cfg: alias=sip.myserver.com I see error at log - bad_uri sip.myserver.com try adding the port... alias=sip.myserver.com:5060 Also, since you're behind NAT make sure you also advertise the address with advertised_address=sip.myserver.com. Fred Posner The

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio presence (NAT, XCAP)

Hello, indeed it is sad that IETF could come up with very complex presence specifications for sip. Given that, it will not be easy to explain here the full architecture of presence signaling and interaction with xcap server. Maybe you can get more inspiration from two tutorials out there:

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hello Fred, calls are being bridged across two interfaces: one natted from the outside with one public IP and one directly connected to the Asterisk. - Original Message - From: Fred Posner Sent: 01/24/14 06:55 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hello Andrew, I did not know this function. I am using it to determine the direction of the flow. Thank you - Original Message - From: Andrew Pogrebennyk Sent: 01/24/14 06:51 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 01/23/2014 05

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

: Klaus Darilion Sent: 01/23/14 08:12 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 23.01.2014 10:29, John Smith wrote: Hello Klaus, I had already two sockets bound each to two independent physical interfaces. I have added the force_send_socket

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 23.01.2014 10:29, John Smith wrote: Hello Klaus, I had already two sockets bound each to two independent physical interfaces. I have added the force_send_socket at each rtpproxy Just for clarity: force_send_socket is for near_end NAT traversal of the SIP

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

On 01/24/2014 09:51 AM, Andrew Pogrebennyk wrote: On 01/23/2014 05:12 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote: It is necessary to use the cwie / cwei flags in the rtpproxy_manage call? If rtpproxy uses only a single listen-IP, then these flags are not needed. Only if you operate rtpproxy in bridge mode,

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

On 01/23/2014 05:12 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote: It is necessary to use the cwie / cwei flags in the rtpproxy_manage call? If rtpproxy uses only a single listen-IP, then these flags are not needed. Only if you operate rtpproxy in bridge mode, then you need these flags. Bridge mode is necessary

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Am 21.01.2014 17:33, schrieb John Smith: The next test has been to comment out the rtpproxy_manage at NATMANAGE function and to put it both at route[RELAY] and onreply(route) following your post in this list from January

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

at Kamailio. Thank you for your help - Original Message - From: Klaus Darilion Sent: 01/23/14 12:26 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT Am 21.01.2014 17:33, schrieb John Smith: The next test has been to comment out the rtpproxy_manage

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

On 23.01.2014 10:29, John Smith wrote: Hello Klaus, I had already two sockets bound each to two independent physical interfaces. I have added the force_send_socket at each rtpproxy Just for clarity: force_send_socket is for near_end NAT traversal of the SIP signaling, whereas

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hello, I am currently deploying one Kamailio behind NAT with one Asterisk as explained in the Asipto KB (Kamailio 4.0.x and Asterisk 11.3.0 using Asterisk Database http://kb.asipto.com/asterisk:realtime:kamailio-4.0.x-asterisk-11.3.0-astdb ). The structure is deployed as described in that

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

With a patched version of rtpproxy you can advertise your private ip. http://www.fredposner.com/voip/1457/kamailio-behind-nat/ ---Fred On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:18 AM, John Smith jsmith...@mail.com wrote: Hello, I am currently deploying one Kamailio behind NAT with one Asterisk as

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hi Fred, I have followed your HOWTO and the scenario remains exactly the same. I see traffic from Phone1 IP to Kamailio private IP, from Kamailio private IP to Asterisk IP, and back directly to Phone2 public IP. I might be making wrong assumptions regarding this traffic flow. Is that correct?

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Hi John, rtpproxy is not enough if you are using asterisk in your environment. You have to check that asterisk is configured to work with NAT, otherwise you will experience audio problems. Are the asterisk RTP ports enabled/forwarded on your firewall? Regards, Kostas On Jan 21, 2014, at

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

On 21.01.2014 12:27, Fred Posner wrote: With a patched version of rtpproxy you can advertise your private ip. http://www.fredposner.com/voip/1457/kamailio-behind-nat/ Aha, nice. Haven't known of this one. I always specified the adverstised IP address when calling manage_rtpproxy(). That

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

On 21.01.2014 13:24, John Smith wrote: I might be making wrong assumptions regarding this traffic flow. Is that correct? That depends on your policy. It is up to you to define how RTP should be routed. There are basically 2 choices: a) RTP from clients is handled by rtpproxy: phone1

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Actually, it should work without any NAT traversal done in Asterisk, if Asterisk communicates never direct with the phones, but only via Kamailio and rtpproxy. In this case, Asterisk can use private IP addresses. All the near-end NAT traversal can be done in Kamailio. regards Klaus On

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

/14 05:06 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT Hi John, rtpproxy is not enough if you are using asterisk in your environment. You have to check that asterisk is configured to work with NAT, otherwise you will experience audio problems

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

and then rewrite via rtpproxy_offer in the NATMANAGE block? Thank you - Original Message - From: Klaus Darilion Sent: 01/21/14 05:25 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 21.01.2014 13:24, John Smith wrote: I might be making wrong

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

Using advertised IP address in manage_rttproxy would work with unpatched rtpproxy? Thank you - Original Message - From: Klaus Darilion Sent: 01/21/14 05:18 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 21.01.2014 12:27, Fred Posner

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

(SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 21.01.2014 12:27, Fred Posner wrote: With a patched version of rtpproxy you can advertise your private ip. http://www.fredposner.com/voip/1457/kamailio-behind-nat/ Aha, nice. Haven't known of this one. I always

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

? To check if the IP is from the outside and then rewrite via rtpproxy_offer in the NATMANAGE block? Thank you - Original Message - From: Klaus Darilion Sent: 01/21/14 05:25 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT On 21.01.2014 13:24, John

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT

here? Thank you - Original Message - From: Klaus Darilion Sent: 01/21/14 07:25 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT Yes, when calling rtpproxy (whatever function you use, manage/offer/answer/force), every function accepts

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - best practice

+1 Klaus - I used your tips and Kamailio is working great behind NAT. I'll try to test different types of NATs and see if SIP and RTP works perfectly for all scenarios. Thanks and cheers Sammy On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at wrote: Am 11.01.2013

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - best practice

Am 11.01.2013 02:12, schrieb Richard Brady: Hi Klaus Thanks for posting the working solution. You are right that mhomed=1 won't help if the sockets both have same IP address. That's true. Though I think if you used it with two different IPs and the correct routing tables on the OS then it

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - best practice

Hi Richard! I wonder why I have to set mhomed. In the scenario I described both sockets are in the same network segment and I would guess that automatic socket selection will not work and always chooses the same socket. I think I have to set the proper outgoing socket manually with

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - best practice

Hey Klaus The way you described works for me (on EC2) and I think is a good solution. Be sure to set mhomed=1 in your config. Richard On 4 January 2013 17:57, Ovidiu Sas o...@voipembedded.com wrote: Hello Klauss, I use record_route_preset for this kind of scenarios:

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - best practice

Hello Klauss, I use record_route_preset for this kind of scenarios: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.3.x/modules_k/rr.html#id2550086 That was the main reason that I enhanced record_route_preset with the second parameter (see the Note on string2). I haven't tried your idea with two sockets.

[SR-Users] Kamailio behind NAT - best practice

Hi! Up to now I could avoid Kamailio setups with Kamailio behind NAt. But this time I have to deal with it. That's why I want to ask what others did as best practice. The scenario is: Asterisk 1\ Kamailio+RTPPROXY \ |10.10.0.2 Asterisk n--\|

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio 3.2, NAT, rtpproxy bridging between interfaces

Hello, are the SDP bodies full in your traces? I don't see the 'a=' rtpproxy marker line. You should not give anymore the second parameter to rtpproxy_manage() if the rtpproxy is in bridging mode and you use flags I, E. Also, I don't see the logs from kamailio, you added some xlog() lines