<DIV>
<DIV>I changed the line modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "/var/run/rtpproxy.sock") to modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "udp:localhost:22222") and started the rtpproxy as ./rtpproxy -s udp from the relevant directory and this resulted in a series of "rtpp_command: no response from rtpproxy" and rtpproxy temporarily disabled" errors. If I return to the original modparam and start it as ./rtpproxy then it works but like I said when the private client rings the public client, I get "ERROR: send_rtpp_command: cant read reply from a RTP Proxy".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Any further ideas? Has anyone on the mailing list experienced this? I am using the script given in the onsip getting started doc for 0.9.0. but am using ser 0.8.14.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BR,</DIV>
<DIV>Vivienne</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>"Greger V. Teigre" <greger@teigre.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><XMETA name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV>See inline.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Thank you for that Greger. I have altered my script so that it<BR>> exactly mimics the one in the onsip document besides the has_totag<BR>> and fix_nated register. All is good when I ring from a private phone<BR>> to a public phone i.e. the audio is very clear and the following<BR>> messages are in /var/log. <BR>> <BR>> ERROR: extract_body: message body has length zero<BR>> ERROR: force_rtp_proxy2: cant extract body from the message.<BR>> <BR>> I assume this is because of the 200 OK to a register message where<BR>> theres no sdp?? Is this correct? <BR></DIV>
<DIV>That's correct. You will find code in the example configs where we test for an empty body before calling force_rtp_proxy.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> However when I try to phone from public into private I get:<BR>> <BR>> ERROR: send_rtpp_command: cant read reply from a RTP Proxy.<BR>> <BR>> I find this confusing because I know the rtpproxy is working.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>This means that rtpproxy is not responding to a particular message. I have heard some people have had problems with the socket based communication. I only use UDP. This is what you do to set up udp (22222 is default port):</DIV>
<DIV>modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "udp:localhost:22222")</DIV>
<DIV>rtpproxy must be started with -s udp:*</DIV>
<DIV>g-)</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> BR<BR>> Vivienne.<BR>> <BR>> "Greger V. Teigre" <greger@teigre.com> wrote:<BR>> Yes, you can use fix_nated_contact instead. It is not entirely<BR>> RFC-compliant, but that's what you have in 0.8.14. <BR>> The has_totag() only tests to see if the INVITE has a To header,<BR>> which means that it is in-dialog and thus is a re-INVITE. An INVITE<BR>> will normally not have loose routing unless you have another SIP<BR>> proxy forwarding an INVITE to you (in which case you should assume<BR>> that the other proxy handles NAT and thus not trigger NAT-related<BR>> code). You can safely remove the has_totag() if you use<BR>> force_rtp_proxy("l") <BR>> g-)<BR>> <BR>> ---- Original Message ----<BR>> From: Vivienne Curran<BR>> To: Greger V. Teigre ; serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 02:25 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Contact Header and SDP not
rewritten<BR>> <BR>>> Greger,<BR>>> <BR>>> Since fix_nated_register does not exist with 0.8.14, will<BR>>> fix_nated_contact do instead? Also if I am leaving out the<BR>>> has_totag() at the start of the script, will this greatly effect its<BR>>> functionality?<BR>>> <BR>>> Thank you,<BR>>> Vivienne</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com