Hmmmmn, the ALG seems to be sending the correct public info.  This begs 
two questions.

1.  Did sipX offer (I mean the INVITE SDP this time) 94.227.135.32 
instead of  10.10.10.249?
2.  Do you get the same result if the caller is not behind NAT?

If the answer to any of the two questions is NO, I am going to be 
interested in digging further since there might be something in sipX 
that we can improve on to be more NAT friendly.

If the answer to the above items is both YES, it simply confirms the 
limitation of sipX that it must have a prior knowledge of the phone 
being inside a NAT for it to process the call correctly.  I am aware 
that another opensource ipbx has a flag to mark remote workers as NATted 
via the configuration regardless of whether the UA is mangling the 
transport addresses or not.  I am not sure of the repercussions of this 
if it gets supported in sipXconfig (if it's not already there).  Right 
off the bat, I think this sort of flag will have a side effect on shared 
lines.  I'll leave the rest to the old timers before i dig my own grave. 
:-).

Joegen



On Wednesday, 08 September, 2010 01:16 AM, Smith wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>    charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Organization: SipXecs Forum
> In-Reply-To:<[email protected]>
> X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8<51592>
> Message-ID:<[email protected]>
>
>
>
> Hi Joegen,
>
> Here is a 200 OK coming from behind the ALG
>
> Time: 2010-09-07T16:59:02.921257Z
> Frame: 49 sipXproxy.xml:19294 sipXproxy.xml:19799
> Source: 109.130.31.142:31128
> Dest: sip.pro-cyb.local-SipXProxy
>
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 213.219.139.175:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-XX-00b2MeN`s_x5L7Iq`Y58w
> DiuPQ
> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
> 192.168.1.248;branch=z9hG4bK-XX-00aeask4HxoYLmq8RuEERGs7Hw~3
> bRy038bIlVIJWyXC_UEnQ;id=2904-0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.10.10.249:5060;branch=z9hG4bK44400ff0357ee49d3e807ecdc89d
> 7ef8;rport=5060;received=94.227.135.32
> Record-Route:<
> sip:213.219.139.175:5060;lr;sipXecs-CallDest=INT;sipXecs-rs=
> %2Aauth%7E.%2Afrom%7ENjc0ODk2NjY1.900_ntap%2ACrT%7EOTQuMjI3L
> jEzNS4zMjo1MDYwO3RyYW5zcG9ydD11ZHA%60.900_ntap%2Aid%7EMjkwNC
> 0w%2159ea00dece0128391ec7b20410f55e72>
> Contact:
> <sip:mailto:[email protected]:31128;rinstance=a7a6a3de5a5db069;x-sipX-nonat>
> To:<sip:mailto:[email protected];user=phone>;tag=19545c04
> From: "325"<sip:mailto:[email protected]>;tag=674896665
> Call-ID: mailto:1164113...@10_10_10_249
> CSeq: 3 INVITE
> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY,
> MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, INFO
> Content-Type: application/sdp
> User-Agent: X-Lite release 1104o stamp 56125
> Content-Length: 187
>
> v=0
> o=- 4 2 IN IP4 192.168.1.11
> s=CounterPath X-Lite 3.0
> c=IN IP4 109.130.31.142
> t=0 0
> m=audio 32114 RTP/AVP 8 0 101
> a=fmtp:101 0-15
> a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
> a=sendrecv
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
>    

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

Reply via email to