and multitasking - the latter
*may* be solved by going with AGI (not sure yet as Asterisk is still
completely new to me).
I don't really follow you.
What I meant was that it may be necessary (at a later stage, once I get
enough level of knowledge to be confident of doing something a bit more
complex) to ask Asterisk to "multitask" - for example: I listed in one
of my previous posts, that once the "essential" part (i.e. connectivity
& security) is set up properly, my idea is to set up the proper logic
for treating different call groups.
One particular example of this, as I already pointed out in that earlier
post, is I'd like to ask "anonymous" callers (i.e. callers without any
caller IDs or callers placed in that group by myself/admin/other) to be
asked by Asterisk what is the reason for their call before routing the
call, then some sort of moh to be played while Asterisk - at the same
time - rings a nominated number and plays what the callers just said
(which should be recorded temporarily, obviously) and I would have 4
options - accept the call, in which case Asterisk transfers the caller
to me, reject it with a "not available" message, reject it but allow the
caller to leave a message, or reject the call returning a message to the
caller that the number is blacklisted.
This flow, I am almost certain, would require multitasking on the part
of Asterisk - that is what I meant with my previous post.
Nope! My eth0 interface is not facing the public Internet directly - it
takes its IP address from my ISP's DHCP (which is private!) even though
it can forward/pass traffic through the public internet via that
interface, that is the problem.
In this case, "your" router is the one that your ISP provided or is
using, which performs NAT for your hosts. If it is Linux with
ip_nat_sip, I believe that it'll "fix" packets without requiring you
to configure your Asterisk host.
I am not sure that is the case though - especially when I will be using
"non-standard" sip port (5061 & 5065) - in my current configuration I
use a STUN option on my existing client, but the connection is routed
directly - no intermediaries at all, so don't know what Asterisk is
going to do in such case, hence my concern.
That was my initial intention as I was hoping Linux will map each
request/response using the appropriate interface (i.e. on which
interface it comes from), I realise binding on 0.0.0.0. is not ideal
from a security point of view (I'd rather issue separate udpbind
statements for the interfaces I want to use), but for now it have to do
if there isn't an alternative.
Linux *can* do that, but it requires a bit of configuration for route
selection.
All the routes are already configured - I have no problem with that bit
(I use checkpoint as well as another - customised - module, which takes
care of accounting & implements additional tracking). My only worry is
from a security point of view - 0.0.0.0 binding is for all interfaces,
which is not something I want, but can live with - for now.
I am a bit baffled though - Asterisk has existed for quite a while now
and I am not sure why this wasn't implemented sooner - everyone knows
that using 0.0.0.0 is a security risk.
Thank you for your input, as always!
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
http://www.asterisk.org/hello
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
