[Freeswitch-users] NAT traversal questions - (long)...
Sergey Okhapkin
sos at sokhapkin.dyndns.org
Sun Aug 29 14:26:04 PDT 2010
To my experience ip_conntrack_sip & ip_nat_sip modules break SIP in many
ways...
On Sunday 29 August 2010, broken dash wrote:
> Yeah, I read more into this last night and your 100% right on about most
> firewalls not supporting this out of the box...You should hookup your IPCOP
> box and unload the ip_conntrack_sip & ip_nat_sip modules to see if it
> breaks in a similar fashion.
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Tony Graziano
> <tgraziano at myitdepartment.net
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ANY generic firewall does not have any type of symmetric nat turned on by
> > default.
> >
> > MANY consumer based routers are also INCAPABLE of doing so (MANUAL).
> >
> > The default use for pfsense is AUTOMATIC, but at least it has an easy way
> > to do MANUAL (AON), easier, IMO than IPTABLES.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Dave Redmore <
> >
> > dave.redmore at spigotsystems.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for your help/thoughts Tony.
> >>
> >> I just confirmed that siproxd is not installed - SSH'd in and checked
> >> running processes to be sure.
> >>
> >> Like I said earlier - I can make it work - I have disabled the automatic
> >> outbound NAT and set up AON (Advanced Outbound Nat). It is just that I
> >> want to understand what I am seeing so that I can learn from all this.
> >>
> >> Here is one thing - If Freeswitch flagged my pfsense connection as being
> >> behind NAT - would it then compensate for the Source port being 11521
> >> (per the packet capture in the original email)? Am I totally wrong in
> >> thinking that it would be "normal" to see packets with the source port
> >> changed for users behind generic NAT firewalls?
> >>
> >> I might try hooking the IPCOP box back up and doing a capture of that,
> >> so I can see what is different between the IPCOP (worked "out of the
> >> box") vs. the pfsense.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Tony Graziano" <tgraziano at myitdepartment.net>
> >> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:53:05 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> >> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] NAT traversal questions - (long)...
> >>
> >> If pfsense and your FS install are on the same subnet then "something"
> >> must be sitting in between to randomize the ports. In the 1.2.x install
> >> of pfsense, siproxd is installed by default. There is also a default
> >> rule for port 5060 that is in pfsense. I suggest removing the filters
> >> AND rules and starting from scratch.
> >>
> >> I believe this is also the default, and undesired installation, when
> >> installing a sip system behind it, even for the beta snapshots of
> >> pfsense 2.0. Please check your installed packages. Please remove any
> >> rules you did not create for the network and start over. What you are
> >> describing sounds to me the siproxd IS/WAS installed. It picks up on
> >> anything on the LAN and randomizes the port. It's a very common thing
> >> with pfsense.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Dave Redmore <
> >>
> >> dave.redmore at spigotsystems.com> wrote:
> >>> Confusion abounds here - sorry if I am being obtuse...
> >>>
> >>> A few points on all this -
> >>>
> >>> 1 - sipproxd is NOT installed on the firewall
> >>>
> >>> 2 - I am confused by the source port randomization issue. I think that
> >>> what pfsense does by default is randomize the source port translations,
> >>> rather than using the same source port translations for all connections
> >>> from an internal host. This is completely different from the issue of
> >>> telling pfsense to not change the source port at all - i.e. create a
> >>> Static Port NAT.
> >>>
> >>> 3 - One of the things that I find most confusing about what I saw/see
> >>> in the packet captures is that I EXPECTED to see non-SIP ports as the
> >>> source port for the registration requests. What we commonly call NAT
> >>> is more accurately described as PAT (Port Address Translation) - it
> >>> functions by translating the source port of requests in and out of the
> >>> firewall. It is one of the FEW things that I like about Cisco is that
> >>> they more accurately use the terms NAT and PAT.
> >>>
> >>> 4 - So, that brings me back to why am I NOT seeing random source ports
> >>> - why is Freeswitch NOT tagging my connection from pfsense as being
> >>> NAT'd?
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To start receiving Spigot Network's once a month newsletter filled with
> >>> interesting technology news and great offers click
> >>> SUBSCRIBE<http://www.spigotnetworks.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Tony Graziano" <tgraziano at myitdepartment.net>
> >>> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 7:11:26 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> >>> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] NAT traversal questions - (long)...
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, the sipxroxd is in the installed packages on his build. Remove
> >>> the intsalled package and make sure the default rule for outgoing
> >>> traffic is set for manual/static nat, not automatic.
> >>>
> >>> http://blog.myitdepartment.net/?p=37
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Tony Graziano
> >>>
> >>> <tgraziano at myitdepartment.net> wrote:
> >>> > Ipcop has a similar setting to pfsense. You probably missed it.
> >>> >
> >>> > MOST FIREWALLS do not use static port NAT. The default rules for
> >>> > pfsense (and packages) for port 5060 should be removed.
> >>> >
> >>> > On your outbound rule for your LAN static port nat needs to be
> >>> > enabled. Once you do that recreate the nat rules AND remove the
> >>> > siproxd package by default.
> >>> >
> >>> > This is really a pfsense firewall question, it is clear static port
> >>> > was not enabled so the source port was re-written because that is
> >>> > what MOST firewalls do by default.
> >>> >
> >>> > On 8/29/10, Dave Redmore <dave.redmore at spigotsystems.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Hello All,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I ran into an issue today that has burned up most of my day
> >>>
> >>> troubleshooting.
> >>>
> >>> >> I have resolved the problem, but would really like to understand
> >>> >> what
> >>>
> >>> caused
> >>>
> >>> >> it, or some of the internal Freeswitch plumbing that is at play so
> >>>
> >>> that I
> >>>
> >>> >> can learn something from all of this time I have invested.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I have a Freeswitch server running that acts as a proxy to an
> >>> >> account
> >>>
> >>> with
> >>>
> >>> >> an ITSP for doing T38 faxing. The Freeswitch server has a public IP
> >>>
> >>> address
> >>>
> >>> >> - there are four "users" who register simple FXS ATAs to my server
> >>> >> and
> >>>
> >>> it
> >>>
> >>> >> then proxies to the ITSP using the "proxy_media" functionality. It
> >>> >> has
> >>>
> >>> been
> >>>
> >>> >> working very well for the last 6 months or so. I have never had to
> >>>
> >>> deal with
> >>>
> >>> >> any NAT traversal issues - I just point the ATA to the IP to
> >>> >> register
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>> >> everything is great.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Here is what the four users "looked" like -
> >>> >>
> >>> >> User1 : Grandstream HT-287 -> DD-WRT Router (NAT) -> Internet ->
> >>>
> >>> Freeswitch
> >>>
> >>> >> Proxy
> >>> >> User2 : Grandstream HT-503 -> DD-WRT Router (NAT) -> Internet ->
> >>>
> >>> Freeswitch
> >>>
> >>> >> Proxy
> >>> >> User3 : Grandstream HT-502 -> Comcast/SMC Router (NAT) -> Internet
> >>> >> -> Freeswitch Proxy
> >>> >> User4 : Grandstream HT-287 -> IPCOP 1.4.11 (NAT) -> Comcast Gateway
> >>> >> -> Freeswitch Proxy
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (User4 is my office, so the IPCOP firewall and the Freeswitch Proxy
> >>>
> >>> sit on
> >>>
> >>> >> the same Comcast Gateway)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As I said, this all worked perfectly without any need to "fiddle"
> >>> >> with anything on any firewalls - worked right out of the box.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So, today I changed out my IPCOP firewall for a pfsense firewall -
> >>> >> and
> >>>
> >>> my
> >>>
> >>> >> HT-287 would no longer register.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> After much head-scratching, packet captures, etc. I found that I
> >>>
> >>> needed to
> >>>
> >>> >> set up a Static Port NAT for the port the HT-287 was using (5062) in
> >>>
> >>> order
> >>>
> >>> >> to get this to work.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So, I see WHAT is happening, but I really want to know WHY it is
> >>>
> >>> happening.
> >>>
> >>> >> Here are the gory details:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The sofia status of the profile looks like this - when the I have
> >>> >> the
> >>>
> >>> Static
> >>>
> >>> >> Port NAT in place (details changed for security):
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________________________
> >>> >> Call-ID: 0e551b3c694a793c at 192.168.1.137
> >>> >> User: 8885554525 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> Contact: "user"
> >>> >> <sip:8885554525 at 192.168.1.137 <sip%3A8885554525 at 192.168.1.137>
> >>>
> >>> ;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip%3A8885554525%40173.22.22.55%3A5060>
> >>>
> >>> >> Agent: Grandstream HT287 1.1.0.45 DevId 000b821203c5
> >>> >> Status: Registered(UDP-NAT)(unknown) EXP(2010-08-29 01:17:03)
> >>> >> Host: 173-11-22-111-illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
> >>> >> IP: 173.22.22.55
> >>> >> Port: 5060
> >>> >> Auth-User: 8885554525
> >>> >> Auth-Realm: 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> MWI-Account: 8885554525 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Call-ID: 1716488819-5062-1 at 192.168.7.150
> >>> >> User: 8885554544 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> Contact: "user" <sip:8885554544 at 192.168.7.150:5062
> >>>
> >>> ;user=phone;fs_nat=yes;
> >>>
> >>> >> fs_path=sip%3A8885554544%4098.255.0.11%3A5062%3Buser%3Dphone>
> >>> >> Agent: Grandstream HT-502 V1.1B 1.0.1.63
> >>> >> Status: Registered(UDP-NAT)(unknown) EXP(2010-08-29 01:48:35)
> >>> >> Host: 173-11-22-111-illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
> >>> >> IP: 98.255.0.11
> >>> >> Port: 5062
> >>> >> Auth-User: 8885554544
> >>> >> Auth-Realm: 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> MWI-Account: 8885554544 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Call-ID: 090ee80e1a0ec9ed at 10.8.11.149
> >>> >> User: 8885554549 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> Contact: "user" <sip:8885554549 at 10.8.11.149:5062>
> >>> >> Agent: Grandstream HT287 1.1.0.45 DevId 000b82127390
> >>> >> Status: Registered(UDP)(unknown) EXP(2010-08-29 02:00:42)
> >>> >> Host: 173-11-22-111-illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
> >>> >> IP: 173.11.22.99
> >>> >> Port: 5062
> >>> >> Auth-User: 8885554549
> >>> >> Auth-Realm: 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> MWI-Account: 8885554549 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Call-ID: 1035241259-5060-1 at 10.1.10.150
> >>> >> User: 8885554547 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> Contact: "user" <sip:8885554547 at 10.1.10.150:5060
> >>>
> >>> ;user=phone;fs_nat=yes;fs
> >>>
> >>> >> _path=sip%3A8885554547%4098.222.55.100%3A5060%3Buser%3Dphone>
> >>> >> Agent: Grandstream HT-503 V1.1B 1.0.1.63
> >>> >> Status: Registered(UDP-NAT)(unknown) EXP(2010-08-29 00:15:09)
> >>> >> Host: 173-11-22-111-illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
> >>> >> IP: 98.222.55.100
> >>> >> Port: 5060
> >>> >> Auth-User: 8885554547
> >>> >> Auth-Realm: 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> MWI-Account: 8885554547 at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> ___________________________________________________________
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The "User4" account is in red. The "Contact" field is substantially
> >>> >> different and the "Status" indicates "Registered (UDP)", rather than
> >>> >> "Registered (UDP-NAT)" as the others.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> When I do a packet capture on the external NIC interface (eth0) - I
> >>>
> >>> see the
> >>>
> >>> >> following when the HT-287 tries to register and the Static Port NAT
> >>> >> is
> >>>
> >>> NOT
> >>>
> >>> >> in place:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ___________________________________________________________________
> >>> >> Internet Protocol, Src: 173.11.22.99 (173.11.22.99), Dst:
> >>>
> >>> 173.11.22.111
> >>>
> >>> >> (173.11.22.111)
> >>> >> User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: 11521 (11521), Dst Port: 5090
> >>> >> (5090) Session Initiation Protocol
> >>> >> Request-Line: REGISTER sip:173.11.22.111:5090 SIP/2.0
> >>> >> Method: REGISTER
> >>> >> Request-URI: sip:173.11.22.111:5090
> >>> >> Request-URI Host Part: 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> Request-URI Host Port: 5090
> >>> >> Message Header
> >>> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.8.11.149:5062;branch=z9hG4bKda48f838c8689e41
> >>> >> Transport: UDP
> >>> >> Sent-by Address: 10.8.11.149
> >>> >> Sent-by port: 5062
> >>> >> Branch: z9hG4bKda48f838c8689e41
> >>> >> From: <sip:8885554549 at 173.11.22.111:5090>;tag=c8a0d452edc5ac4b
> >>> >> SIP from address: sip:8885554549 at 173.11.22.111:5090
> >>> >> SIP tag: c8a0d452edc5ac4b
> >>> >> To: <sip:8885554549 at 173.11.22.111:5090>
> >>> >> Contact: <sip:88855564549 at 10.8.11.149:5062>
> >>> >> Contact Binding: <sip:8885554549 at 10.8.11.149:5062>
> >>> >> Supported: replaces, timer
> >>> >> Call-ID: aa77d777bae71be6 at 10.8.11.149
> >>> >> CSeq: 100 REGISTER
> >>> >> Sequence Number: 100
> >>> >> Method: REGISTER
> >>> >> Expires: 3600
> >>> >> User-Agent: Grandstream HT287 1.1.0.45 DevId 000b82127390
> >>> >> Max-Forwards: 70
> >>> >> Allow:
> >>>
> >>> INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,REFER,OPTIONS,INFO,SUBSCRIBE,UPDATE
> >>>
> >>> >> Content-Length: 0
> >>> >> _______________________________________________________________
> >>> >>
> >>> >> When Freeswitch replies back with a "401 Unauthorized" - asking for
> >>>
> >>> further
> >>>
> >>> >> Auth - it replies back to port 5062 - so the packet never comes back
> >>> >> (pfsense is looking for a packet back on port 11521 in this case).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If I put the Static Port NAT in place - all is well, because the
> >>>
> >>> "Source"
> >>>
> >>> >> port shows as "5062" - the rest of the packet looks pretty much the
> >>>
> >>> same.
> >>>
> >>> >> Now, here is a packet coming from one of the other Users - this one
> >>>
> >>> comes
> >>>
> >>> >> through a DD-WRT router - here we see that the Source Port is 5060 :
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >>> >> Internet Protocol, Src: 173.22.22.55 (173.22.22.55), Dst:
> >>>
> >>> 173.11.22.111
> >>>
> >>> >> (173.11.22.111)
> >>> >> User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: 5090 (5090)
> >>> >> Session Initiation Protocol
> >>> >> Request-Line: REGISTER sip:173.11.22.111:5090 SIP/2.0
> >>> >> Method: REGISTER
> >>> >> Request-URI: sip:173.11.22.111:5090
> >>> >> [Resent Packet: False]
> >>> >> Message Header
> >>> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.137;branch=z9hG4bK665bc67a1c64292b
> >>> >> Transport: UDP
> >>> >> Sent-by Address: 192.168.1.137
> >>> >> Branch: z9hG4bK665bc67a1c64292b
> >>> >> From: "fax" <sip:8885554525 at 173.11.22.111:5090>;tag=8dc68b35111c4261
> >>> >> To: <sip:8156564525 at 173.15.28.101:5090>
> >>> >> Contact:
> >>> >> <sip:8885554525 at 192.168.1.137<sip%3A8885554525 at 192.168.1.137>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Contact Binding:
> >>> >> <sip:8885554525 at 192.168.1.137<sip%3A8885554525 at 192.168.1.137>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Call-ID: 0e551b3c694a793c at 192.168.1.137
> >>> >> CSeq: 503 REGISTER
> >>> >> Sequence Number: 503
> >>> >> Method: REGISTER
> >>> >> Expires: 3600
> >>> >> User-Agent: Grandstream HT287 1.1.0.45 DevId 000b821203c5
> >>> >> Max-Forwards: 70
> >>> >> Allow:
> >>>
> >>> INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,REFER,OPTIONS,INFO,SUBSCRIBE,UPDATE
> >>>
> >>> >> Content-Length: 0
> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________________
> >>> >>__
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Here is one more packet coming from a Comcast/SMC Router - again,
> >>> >> the
> >>>
> >>> source
> >>>
> >>> >> port is correct:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________________
> >>> >>__ Internet Protocol, Src: 98.244.55.100 (98.244.55.100), Dst:
> >>>
> >>> 173.11.22.111
> >>>
> >>> >> (173.11.22.111)
> >>> >> User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: 5090 (5090)
> >>> >> Session Initiation Protocol
> >>> >> Request-Line: REGISTER sip:173.11.22.111:5090 SIP/2.0
> >>> >> Message Header
> >>> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.1.10.150:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58981045;rport
> >>> >> Transport: UDP
> >>> >> Sent-by Address: 10.1.10.150
> >>> >> Sent-by port: 5060
> >>> >> Branch: z9hG4bK58981045
> >>> >> RPort: rport
> >>> >> From: <sip:8885554547 at 173.11.22.111:5090;user=phone>;tag=138706651
> >>> >> To: <sip:8885554547 at 173.11.22.111:5090;user=phone>
> >>> >> Call-ID: 1035241259-5060-1 at 10.1.10.150
> >>> >> CSeq: 79875 REGISTER
> >>> >> Sequence Number: 79875
> >>> >> Method: REGISTER
> >>> >> Contact:
> >>> >> <sip:8885554547 at 10.1.10.150:5060
> >>>
> >>> ;user=phone>;reg-id=1;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-
> >>>000B821F9A84>"
> >>>
> >>> >> Contact Binding:
> >>> >> <sip:8885554547 at 10.1.10.150:5060
> >>>
> >>> ;user=phone>;reg-id=1;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-
> >>>000B821F9A84>"
> >>>
> >>> >> Max-Forwards: 70
> >>> >> User-Agent: Grandstream HT-503 V1.1B 1.0.1.63
> >>> >> Supported: path
> >>> >> Expires: 300
> >>> >> Allow: INVITE, ACK, OPTIONS, CANCEL, BYE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO,
> >>>
> >>> REFER,
> >>>
> >>> >> UPDATE
> >>> >> Content-Length: 0
> >>> >> ___________________________________________________________
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So, here are my questions:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> - Why is the Sofia Status so much different for the registration
> >>>
> >>> coming
> >>>
> >>> >> through the pfSense firewall. It looks like it doesn't get tagged as
> >>>
> >>> being
> >>>
> >>> >> NAT'd and the "Contact" info is much less.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> - Do most modern routers automatically Static Port NAT any SIP
> >>>
> >>> traffic? Both
> >>>
> >>> >> DD-WRT and SMC routers appear to be doing this - and not just on a
> >>>
> >>> simple
> >>>
> >>> >> Port bases (UDP 5060 only), because one of these examples is on
> >>> >> 5062.
> >>>
> >>> Are
> >>>
> >>> >> these "SIP aware" firewalls that are doing this automatically, as
> >>> >> the
> >>>
> >>> IPCOP
> >>>
> >>> >> did before?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> - Is the extra "Contact" data in the last packet example different
> >>>
> >>> because
> >>>
> >>> >> it is a different UA (HT-503 rather than an HT-287)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> - Is Freeswitch not flagging the registration from my office (User4)
> >>>
> >>> as
> >>>
> >>> >> being NAT'd because it is coming in on the same subnet as the
> >>>
> >>> interface
> >>>
> >>> >> Freeswitch received the packet on (Freeswitch is at 173.11.22.111
> >>> >> and pfsense is at 173.11.22.99)?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sorry for this terribly long posting - I'm just very curious to
> >>>
> >>> understand
> >>>
> >>> >> what is going on here, now that I have collected all this
> >>> >> information.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Dave
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Sent from my mobile device
> >>> >
> >>> > ======================
> >>> > Tony Graziano, Manager
> >>> > Telephone: 434.984.8430
> >>> > sip: tgraziano at voice.myitdepartment.net
> >>> > Fax: 434.984.8431
> >>> >
> >>> > Email: tgraziano at myitdepartment.net
> >>> >
> >>> > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
> >>> > Telephone: 434.984.8426
> >>> > sip: helpdesk at voice.myitdepartment.net
> >>> > Fax: 434.984.8427
> >>> >
> >>> > Helpdesk Contract Customers:
> >>> > http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/
> >>> >
> >>> > Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
> >>> > Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ======================
> >>> Tony Graziano, Manager
> >>> Telephone: 434.984.8430
> >>> sip: tgraziano at voice.myitdepartment.net
> >>> Fax: 434.984.8431
> >>>
> >>> Email: tgraziano at myitdepartment.net
> >>>
> >>> LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
> >>> Telephone: 434.984.8426
> >>> sip: helpdesk at voice.myitdepartment.net
> >>> Fax: 434.984.8427
> >>>
> >>> Helpdesk Contract Customers:
> >>> http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/
> >>>
> >>> Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
> >>> Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> >>> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> >>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> >>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-user
> >>>s http://www.freeswitch.org
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> >>> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> >>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> >>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-user
> >>>s http://www.freeswitch.org
> >>
> >> --
> >> ======================
> >> Tony Graziano, Manager
> >> Telephone: 434.984.8430
> >> sip: tgraziano at voice.myitdepartment.net
> >> Fax: 434.984.8431
> >>
> >> Email: tgraziano at myitdepartment.net
> >>
> >> LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
> >> Telephone: 434.984.8426
> >> sip: helpdesk at voice.myitdepartment.net
> >> Fax: 434.984.8427
> >>
> >> Helpdesk Contract Customers:
> >> http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/
> >>
> >> Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
> >> Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing
> >> list FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> >> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-usersUNSUBSCRIBE
> >>: http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> >> http://www.freeswitch.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> >> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> >> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> >> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> >> http://www.freeswitch.org
> >
> > --
> > ======================
> > Tony Graziano, Manager
> > Telephone: 434.984.8430
> > sip: tgraziano at voice.myitdepartment.net
> > Fax: 434.984.8431
> >
> > Email: tgraziano at myitdepartment.net
> >
> > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
> > Telephone: 434.984.8426
> > sip: helpdesk at voice.myitdepartment.net
> > Fax: 434.984.8427
> >
> > Helpdesk Contract Customers:
> > http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/
> >
> > Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
> > Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> > FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> > http://www.freeswitch.org
>
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users
mailing list