[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 To :  Marc Dirix <marc@e...>
 From :  Marc LEURENT <lftsy@f...>
 Subject :  Re: [yate] routing with database
 Date :  Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:11:22 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Install ngrep on your server (or wireshark if it's a desktop) and
launch in a terminal:
ngrep -d ethX -W byline port 5060

you'll be able to see SDP fields to see what's wrong!
Send us this, the problem will appear easily



It's very useful

Marc Dirix a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Yate-1.3
>
> I'm still having the same problem.
>
> I don't use STUN, because I understood it is not necessary for
> NAT-Traversal.
>
> The main problem is:
>
> 1 yate server. 2 SIP clients, of which (1) natted, (2) publicly.
> Both clients are registerd.
>
> Client 1 calls client 2 :
> The yate server gets: rtp_forward='possible' during routing, which I
> set to rtp_forward='yes'
> Client 1 gets NO audio, client 2 does.
>
> How is this possible?
> What further testing can I do?
>
> If I set rtp_forward='no' during routing I also get proxy behaviour
> for 2 clients both having public IP's?
>
> Thanks Again,
>
> Marc
>
> On 10 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Paul Chitescu wrote:
>
>> Hi, Marc
>>
>> There are good reasons to proxy the RTP through Yate sometimes.
>> - You can control the audio, insert messages, beeps, do recording
>> and conferencing.
>> - You get RFC 2833 events and/or inband DTMF, can implement PBX
>> functions.
>> - Having a public IP for the media stream fixes most NAT issues
>> (with server's assistance).
>> - The identities of the parties can be held private to each other.
>>
>> On the other hand, sending the RTP directly between parties:
>> - Saves bandwidth to the server and CPU usage.
>> - Reduces latency a little.
>> - Allows using codecs that Yate may not handle correctly, including
>> video.
>>
>> By far NATed clients are the main reason to retain RTP through the
>> server. Despite the best effort with ICE and STUN there are cases
>> when voice just doesn't get through because both parts are behind
>> crowded symmetrical NATs.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Marc Dirix wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If rtp_forward='possible' is set, should I always set this to
>>> rtp_forward='yes'? If not, why, when not?
>>>
>>> Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHfSVJN4+o+2LtdFwRAu7yAJ4oZlk2gsywYvDJVFreKMheUxPvYQCdEAIE
k6Wjmrvt4jqPipAhxoBL/zQ=
=z6sU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----