Re: [Freeswitch-users] Does FS support STUN by default?
Michael Jerris wrote: we also support natpmp and static ip setting. What is static ip setting? Telling FS what the public IP is? If that's what it is, what about the UDP ports that must be open to allow incoming connections? So, in the case where the FS server is located in a private network, these are the ways to open up the ports it needs to allow remote SIP users to connect to it: - UPnP and NAT-PMP (FS asks the router for its public IP, and negotiates opening the required UDP ports dynamically) - STUN (to get the public IP address from a remote STUN server) + port-mapping (to permanently open required UDP ports on NAT firewall) - possibly this fourth solution above -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Does-FS-support-STUN-by-default--tp26727762p26740589.html Sent from the Freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
Fred-145 wrote: What is static ip setting? Telling FS what the public IP is? If that's what it is, what about the UDP ports that must be open to allow incoming connections? Yes, static IP setting puts the (non-changing) IP addresses in the FS configuration. The ports must be manually opened/forwarded in the firewall. -- Russell Mosemann ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
One last question: Does someone know of a utility for Windows that can check that a NAT router supports either UPnP or NAT-PMP? I guess it's no big deal to write a small diagnostic by connecting to free firewall checkers to see if the relevant ports are open, but if it's already available... Thank you. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Does-FS-support-STUN-by-default--tp26727762p26748901.html Sent from the Freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
FreeSWITCH on windows will already poke holes in the windows firewall using upnp. Just start FS and it works. Your outer nat is a larger issue... /b On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Fred-145 wrote: One last question: Does someone know of a utility for Windows that can check that a NAT router supports either UPnP or NAT-PMP? I guess it's no big deal to write a small diagnostic by connecting to free firewall checkers to see if the relevant ports are open, but if it's already available... Thank you. -- ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
You don't have to do that usually... /b On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Fred-145 wrote: I'll see if I can find a utility that checks that the ports are open after FS is up and running. ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
Hello I wanted to check if my ADSL modem worked with STUN, so I left its UPNP activity option unchecked, ran FreeSwitch, and used eg. Shields Up (www.grc.com) to check if UDP5080 (and possibly UDP5060) were opened... which SU says no. Does it mean that... - by default, FS doesn't use STUN - or my modem doesn't support STUN, and I must either enable UPnP or map ports (UDP5080 and some UDP ports for RTP/RTPC) statically? Thank you. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Does-FS-support-STUN-by-default--tp26727762p26727762.html Sent from the Freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
STUN is not a way to open ports in a manner in which sheilds up would detect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUNUPNP is what you want if you want to open ports. STUN is just a method for figuring out how to do nat traversal. STUN method is initiated by the process on the inside of the firewall at connection establish time. It will do no good for the listen case which is what you are checking for. If you want to use stun, then you need to forward the listen ports manually (5060, 5080 - UDP and TCP). On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Fred-145 codecompl...@free.fr wrote: Hello I wanted to check if my ADSL modem worked with STUN, so I left its UPNP activity option unchecked, ran FreeSwitch, and used eg. Shields Up (www.grc.com) to check if UDP5080 (and possibly UDP5060) were opened... which SU says no. Does it mean that... - by default, FS doesn't use STUN - or my modem doesn't support STUN, and I must either enable UPnP or map ports (UDP5080 and some UDP ports for RTP/RTPC) statically? Thank you. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Does-FS-support-STUN-by-default--tp26727762p26727762.html Sent from the Freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 -- -Rupa ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
Thanks for the clarification. So it's either UPnP or STUN/port-mapping. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Does-FS-support-STUN-by-default--tp26727762p26731188.html Sent from the Freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Does FS support STUN by default?
we also support natpmp and static ip setting. Mike On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Fred-145 wrote: Thanks for the clarification. So it's either UPnP or STUN/port-mapping. ___ 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
