Hi,

You sound like a good candidate for my new experimental force contact feature.

For this to work you need to use the directory for auth instead of the blind reg mode.

*) Edit sofia.conf.xml and comment the blind reg option.
*) Edit directory.xml and add a <user> tag to the <domain name="$${domain}">
   section making sure $${domain} is also the name of the domain portion of
   the sip's client registration.

edit the file to look something like this and put in a absolute contact to use when this user registers regardless of what he advertises. This means that if you are using nat you should setup a permenant port forwarding for whatver uri you mention.

e.g.

Assuming your public ip is 66.2.2.2 and your phone is 10.0.0.2

add a rule to always port forward udp port 5555 of 66.2.2.2 to 10.0.0.2 5060
then edit the following so the contact uri is user@66.2.2.2:5555

Whenever the phone registers with this user the specified contact will be added to the database instead of the real one this should make it possible for your phone to receive sip traffic even if it does not support STUN.

<domain name="$${domain}">
<user id="myuser">
<params>
      <param name="password" value="mypass"/>
</params>
    <variables>
      <variable name="force-contact" value="[TESTING] sip:myuser@66.2.2.2:5555"/>
    </variables>
</user>
</domain>

Anthony Minessale II

FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/
ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/

AIM: anthm
MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com
JABBER:anthony.minessale@gmail.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch

FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org
iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888
googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org
pstn:213-799-1400

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave <lists+freeswitch@bigfatdave.com>
To: FSwtch Usrs <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:20:53 AM
Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Strange Reg

Hi guys,

I've got a rather interesting situation,
 here.  I've got an ATA
registering to a FreeSWITCH(TM) (FS2), both behind NAT.  So far, so good.
Now, the FreeSWITCH(TM) registers to another FreeSWITCH(TM) outside the
NAT (FS2), and that's where the problems start.  Here's the configuration:

ATA<->FS2<->NAT<->Internet<->FS1

ATA: 10.1.0.51 (behind NAT)
FS2: 10.1.0.30 (behind NAT)
FS1: freeswitch1.asnetinc.net (64.118.94.19)

Now, here's where it gets very interesting.  This is what FS1 gets when
FS2 registers:
> From:    [R352928@freeswitch1.asnetinc.net]
> Contact: ["user" <sip:R352928@10.0.0.221:39260>]
> Expires: [3600]
> nta_agent: tport: Bad message

Now, where on Earth did 10.0.0.221 come from???  (I've actually hardcoded
both external_rtp_ip and server_name to the public IP of the NAT in the
FS2 config, but for some strange reason, FS2
 apparently claims to be at
10.0.0.221, which isn't even its local IP.)

As if that's not interesting enough, I get this from FS1, too, when it
tries to connect to another SIP server on the public Internet:
> outbound(0xb4e1e1a0): detected NAT: freeswitch1.asnetinc.net != 64.118.94.19

Now, since a forward DNS resolution claims that the inequality is false, I
assume it attempted a reverse DNS lookup, which would fail (since my ISP
takes forever to update PTR records).

As usual, any hints, tips, tricks, ideas, suggestions, flames, questions,
or (ideally) answers are greatly appreciated :-)

Thank you,
 - Dave

_______________________________________________
Freeswitch-users mailing list
Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org