I don't recall seeing anything anywhere (while compiling, on the Wiki, etc) that would suggest that FreeSWITCH does uPnP (or NAT-PMP for that matter; this question is without regard to NAT Traversal religion) for port mapping. Is this a correct assumption? Does anyone know if Asterisk does do uPnP or NAT-PMP to map incoming ports to itself? I haven't touched Asterisk in a couple years so... This is mostly just my idle curiosity working, triggered by another question asked on the list... thanks, eric
On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:32 PM, R. Eric Bennett wrote:
I don't recall seeing anything anywhere (while compiling, on the Wiki, etc) that would suggest that FreeSWITCH does uPnP (or NAT-PMP for that matter; this question is without regard to NAT Traversal religion) for port mapping. Is this a correct assumption?
It doesn't but with a two libs it could be made to do so. Their are two libs to do both uPNP and PMP with little trouble. http://miniupnp.free.fr/libnatpmp.html That would allow you to create a module to subscribe to events to make them map the ports back to the FreeSWITCH box. So mod_sofia could fire an event saying "Hey, I'm on port 5060" and your mod_nat could listen to those and poke the holes back to FreeSWITCH on those ports. Just an idea :) I have thought about it before. /b
Does anyone know if Asterisk does do uPnP or NAT-PMP to map incoming ports to itself? I haven't touched Asterisk in a couple years so...
This is mostly just my idle curiosity working, triggered by another question asked on the list...
thanks, eric
On Sep 16, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Brian West wrote:
On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:32 PM, R. Eric Bennett wrote:
I don't recall seeing anything anywhere (while compiling, on the Wiki, etc) that would suggest that FreeSWITCH does uPnP (or NAT-PMP for that matter; this question is without regard to NAT Traversal religion) for port mapping. Is this a correct assumption?
It doesn't but with a two libs it could be made to do so. Their are two libs to do both uPNP and PMP with little trouble.
http://miniupnp.free.fr/libnatpmp.html
That would allow you to create a module to subscribe to events to make them map the ports back to the FreeSWITCH box. So mod_sofia could fire an event saying "Hey, I'm on port 5060" and your mod_nat could listen to those and poke the holes back to FreeSWITCH on those ports. Just an idea :) I have thought about it before.
Cool. But note again that I don't actually want the functionality myself, i.e. this is certainly not my lobbying for it. I think what triggered it was the combination of the problem with hand- configured port forwarding from a couple weeks ago combined with a recent, albeit misdescribed, question about port forwarding. Somehow this made me wonder whether the SoHo focus of so many Asterisk users resulted in uPnP/NAT-PMP support being added. It was much easier to ask here than to go find it in an Asterisk feature list... ;) thanks, eric
Both uPnP and NAT-PMP are rather useless: they cannot handle multiple layers of NAT (eg. NAT at home, plus NAT at ISP). ICE/STUN can. I've heard somewhere that Asterisk 1.6 does have a MIDCOM or some similar NAT traversal protocol. But relatively few NAT devices support these protocols. Why bother? NAT hole punching techniques used by ICE/STUN works through almost all NATs, and the rest can be solved using TURN. Bye Damjan
I don't recall seeing anything anywhere (while compiling, on the Wiki, etc) that would suggest that FreeSWITCH does uPnP (or NAT-PMP for that matter; this question is without regard to NAT Traversal religion) for port mapping. Is this a correct assumption?
Does anyone know if Asterisk does do uPnP or NAT-PMP to map incoming ports to itself? I haven't touched Asterisk in a couple years so...
This is mostly just my idle curiosity working, triggered by another question asked on the list...
thanks, eric
_______________________________________________ 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
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
participants (3)
-
Brian West
-
damjanï¼ ecntelecoms.com
-
R. Eric Bennett