[OpenSIPS-Users] opensips and NAT

[rvg at rvgeerligs.nl]

Hi,

Should I try something like

 nat_uac_test(diff-ip-src-contact || private-contact || diff-ip-src-via || diff-port-src-via)?

Any ideas?

Regards,

Ronald




December 15, 2023 at 4:38 PM, rvg at rvgeerligs.nl wrote:


> 
> Hi
> 
> I use opensips 3.4 and I have NAT problems with 2 devices behind the same NAT (called party hears nothing).
> The A party is softphone on iPhone (linphone) the B (called)party is Polycom310. The other way around works (Polycom calls linphone).
> 
> Actually I tested this in two different NAT locations. 
> The first location repeatedly works. The second location gives the problem. Both locations have changing public IP addresses and DHCP on 192.168 network.
> Both locations have one FX number assigned to them. No SIP ALG active. 
> 
> I use nat_uac_test(diff-ip-src-contact).
> 
> There is a table:
> 1.5.5.  nat_uac_test(flags)
> Tries to guess if client's request originated behind a nat. The parameter determines what heuristics is used.
> 
> Meaning of the flags (string) parameter is as follows:
> 
> private-contact - (old 1 flag) Contact header field is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 / RFC6598 addresses.
> 
> diff-ip-src-via - (old 2 flag) the "received" test is used: address in Via is compared against source IP address of signaling
> 
> private-via - (old 4 flag) Top Most VIA is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 / RFC6598 addresses
> 
> private-sdp - (old 8 flag) SDP is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 / RFC6598 addresses
> 
> diff-port-src-via - (old 16 flag) test if the source port is different from the port in Via
> 
> diff-ip-src-contact - (old 32 flag) address in Contact is compared against source IP address of signaling. <<<<
> 
> diff-port-src-contact - (old 64 flag) Port in Contact is compared against source port of signaling <<<<
> 
> carrier-grade-nat - (old 128 flag) also include RFC 6333 addresses in the checks for ct, via and sdp flags.
> 
> A CSV of the above flags can be provided, the test returns true if any of the tests identified a NAT.
> 
> Currently I use old flag 32.
> 
> I read that using the equivalent of 19 might help but I dont see that in the table.
> 
> Any advice is appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ronald Geerligs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20231215/8995e1d7/attachment.html>