Port mapping disabled warning in Freeswitch log
If I set log level to warning, I see in the log many row as: [WARNING] switch_nat.c:589 NAT port mapping disabled My freeswitch is running as: "./freeswitch -nonat" because it has a public IP and all connected gateways have also a public IP. To avoid this warning I have removed the parameter "-nonat" but if I do "show nat_map" in fs_cli I see "0 total.". I have always started Freeswitch with "-nonat", any advise to solve that?
I lowered it to INFO On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Stephen Wilde <wstephen80@gmail.com> wrote:
If I set log level to warning, I see in the log many row as: [WARNING] switch_nat.c:589 NAT port mapping disabled My freeswitch is running as: "./freeswitch -nonat" because it has a public IP and all connected gateways have also a public IP. To avoid this warning I have removed the parameter "-nonat" but if I do "show nat_map" in fs_cli I see "0 total.". I have always started Freeswitch with "-nonat", any advise to solve that?
-- -Rupa
Ok, thank you Rupa. My doubt was: why FS try to add a nat port mapping when there is no nat? But if this is only a log problem, then ok, I'll do a git pull. Stephen On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rupa Schomaker <rupa@rupa.com> wrote:
I lowered it to INFO
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Stephen Wilde <wstephen80@gmail.com> wrote:
If I set log level to warning, I see in the log many row as: [WARNING] switch_nat.c:589 NAT port mapping disabled My freeswitch is running as: "./freeswitch -nonat" because it has a public IP and all connected gateways have also a public IP. To avoid this warning I have removed the parameter "-nonat" but if I do "show nat_map" in fs_cli I see "0 total.". I have always started Freeswitch with "-nonat", any advise to solve that?
-- -Rupa
_______________________________________________ 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
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Stephen Wilde <wstephen80@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, thank you Rupa. My doubt was: why FS try to add a nat port mapping when there is no nat? But if this is only a log problem, then ok, I'll do a git pull. Stephen
The log is informational. I guess you could call it an impedance mismatch between the caller and the callee. The function that calls the mapping function doesn't know or care if nat is setup. The called mapping function logs a warning (now info) saying "hey dummy, nat isn't setup so I'm not going to do a nat map". So lowering to info is the easiest, maybe even debug is more appropriate. I can be easily convinced of that. -- -Rupa
participants (2)
-
Rupa Schomaker
-
Stephen Wilde