OT: Snom phones reporting incorrect port in Contact/Via
Hello, I got a problem with Snom phones where they report a different port than the one provisioned. I tried to talk with the snom support without success. REGISTER sip:phone.gateon.se:5070 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 217.31.xxx.xxx:26062;branch=z9hG4bK-u1y0v7is9ix0;rport From: "Helene XXX" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070>;tag=kjaa26j1qv To: "Helene xxx" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070> Call-ID: 3c267019ee2d-ni5vq3v88za6 CSeq: 133 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: <sip:u1000028@217.31.xxx.xxx :26062;line=yhkplirb>;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:1f2c528a-18f1-435d-ad61-2be3d1a88425>";audio;mobility="fixed";duplex="full";description="snom360";actor="principal";events="dialog";methods="INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" User-Agent: snom360/7.3.30 Supported: gruu Allow-Events: dialog X-Real-IP: 192.168.3.109 Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 The port that I provisioned (and I've doublechecked in the webinterface) is 5071 and not 26062. Have anyone else got this problem and solved it? Regards, Jonas
I found the problem. The phone uses RPORT and switches to the port reported by FS instead of using the one specified in the provisioning. :( On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello,
I got a problem with Snom phones where they report a different port than the one provisioned. I tried to talk with the snom support without success.
REGISTER sip:phone.gateon.se:5070 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 217.31.xxx.xxx:26062;branch=z9hG4bK-u1y0v7is9ix0;rport From: "Helene XXX" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070>;tag=kjaa26j1qv To: "Helene xxx" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070> Call-ID: 3c267019ee2d-ni5vq3v88za6 CSeq: 133 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: <sip:u1000028@217.31.xxx.xxx :26062;line=yhkplirb>;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:1f2c528a-18f1-435d-ad61-2be3d1a88425>";audio;mobility="fixed";duplex="full";description="snom360";actor="principal";events="dialog";methods="INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" User-Agent: snom360/7.3.30 Supported: gruu Allow-Events: dialog X-Real-IP: 192.168.3.109 Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 The port that I provisioned (and I've doublechecked in the webinterface) is 5071 and not 26062.
Have anyone else got this problem and solved it?
Regards, Jonas
A follow up question: Can I force freeswitch to use a specific port (saved in user directory) when the phone asks for "rport", instead of using the actual port that the message was received from? On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com>wrote:
I found the problem. The phone uses RPORT and switches to the port reported by FS instead of using the one specified in the provisioning. :(
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello,
I got a problem with Snom phones where they report a different port than the one provisioned. I tried to talk with the snom support without success.
REGISTER sip:phone.gateon.se:5070 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 217.31.xxx.xxx:26062;branch=z9hG4bK-u1y0v7is9ix0;rport From: "Helene XXX" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070>;tag=kjaa26j1qv To: "Helene xxx" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070> Call-ID: 3c267019ee2d-ni5vq3v88za6 CSeq: 133 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: <sip:u1000028@217.31.xxx.xxx :26062;line=yhkplirb>;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:1f2c528a-18f1-435d-ad61-2be3d1a88425>";audio;mobility="fixed";duplex="full";description="snom360";actor="principal";events="dialog";methods="INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" User-Agent: snom360/7.3.30 Supported: gruu Allow-Events: dialog X-Real-IP: 192.168.3.109 Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 The port that I provisioned (and I've doublechecked in the webinterface) is 5071 and not 26062.
Have anyone else got this problem and solved it?
Regards, Jonas
I think your question here is can you force the nat device to pick a specific port to map? On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com> wrote:
A follow up question:
Can I force freeswitch to use a specific port (saved in user directory) when the phone asks for "rport", instead of using the actual port that the message was received from?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com
wrote: I found the problem. The phone uses RPORT and switches to the port reported by FS instead of using the one specified in the provisioning. :(
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com
wrote: Hello,
I got a problem with Snom phones where they report a different port than the one provisioned. I tried to talk with the snom support without success.
REGISTER sip:phone.gateon.se:5070 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 217.31.xxx.xxx:26062;branch=z9hG4bK- u1y0v7is9ix0;rport From: "Helene XXX" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070>;tag=kjaa26j1qv To: "Helene xxx" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070> Call-ID: 3c267019ee2d-ni5vq3v88za6 CSeq: 133 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: <sip:u1000028@217.31.xxx.xxx:26062;line=yhkplirb>;reg- id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:1f2c528a-18f1-435d- ad61- 2be3d1a88425> ";a udio; mobility= "fixed" ;duplex= "full" ;description= "snom360" ;actor= "principal" ;events= "dialog" ;methods= "INVITE, ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" User-Agent: snom360/7.3.30 Supported: gruu Allow-Events: dialog X-Real-IP: 192.168.3.109 Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 The port that I provisioned (and I've doublechecked in the webinterface) is 5071 and not 26062.
Have anyone else got this problem and solved it?
Regards, Jonas
_______________________________________________ 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
Well, yes. But snom can only turn off rport through provisioning and only in the latest firmware. It would be great if it could be turned off in FS too, per user account. On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
I think your question here is can you force the nat device to pick a specific port to map?
On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Jonas Gauffin <jonas.gauffin@gmail.com> wrote:
A follow up question:
Can I force freeswitch to use a specific port (saved in user directory) when the phone asks for "rport", instead of using the actual port that the message was received from?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Jonas Gauffin <<jonas.gauffin@gmail.com> jonas.gauffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I found the problem. The phone uses RPORT and switches to the port reported by FS instead of using the one specified in the provisioning. :(
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jonas Gauffin <<jonas.gauffin@gmail.com> jonas.gauffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I got a problem with Snom phones where they report a different port than the one provisioned. I tried to talk with the snom support without success.
REGISTER sip:phone.gateon.se:5070 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 217.31.xxx.xxx:26062;branch=z9hG4bK-u1y0v7is9ix0;rport From: "Helene XXX" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070>;tag=kjaa26j1qv To: "Helene xxx" <sip:u1000028@phone.xxxx.se:5070> Call-ID: 3c267019ee2d-ni5vq3v88za6 CSeq: 133 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: <sip:u1000028@217.31.xxx.xxx :26062;line=yhkplirb>;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:1f2c528a-18f1-435d-ad61-2be3d1a88425>";audio;mobility="fixed";duplex="full";description="snom360";actor="principal";events="dialog";methods="INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" User-Agent: snom360/7.3.30 Supported: gruu Allow-Events: dialog X-Real-IP: 192.168.3.109 Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 The port that I provisioned (and I've doublechecked in the webinterface) is 5071 and not 26062.
Have anyone else got this problem and solved it?
Regards, Jonas
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Most of my customers have forwarded ports in their firewalls/routers. Those ports will not be used if rport is turned on. I currently got a problem with a customer who is using an old Windows 2000 server as firewall/router. It wont let packets through when using rport. It would work if rport was turned off and all communication was done using the configured port. On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
You want rport otherwise NAT HELL will begin.
/b
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Well, yes. But snom can only turn off rport through provisioning and only in the latest firmware.
It would be great if it could be turned off in FS too, per user account.
_______________________________________________ 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 does not make any sense. It limits outbound connections based on source port? rport would make us tell the guy the port he DID come from, so the nat mapping is in place and working because we got the packet from that port. On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Most of my customers have forwarded ports in their firewalls/routers. Those ports will not be used if rport is turned on.
I currently got a problem with a customer who is using an old Windows 2000 server as firewall/router. It wont let packets through when using rport. It would work if rport was turned off and all communication was done using the configured port.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote: You want rport otherwise NAT HELL will begin.
/b
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Well, yes. But snom can only turn off rport through provisioning and only in the latest firmware.
It would be great if it could be turned off in FS too, per user account.
It doesnt make sense. But the fact is that the FW/router assigns another port than the requested one. I found a setting in latest firmware for snom which disables rport. But when turned off, it stops using the external IP that stun found. Turning off RPORT should not turn of external ip detection, right? My FS server is on a public IP. Can I tell FS to always send replies to received-ip instead of the one specified in the request (if the specified ip is a RFC1918 ip?) On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
This does not make any sense. It limits outbound connections based on source port? rport would make us tell the guy the port he DID come from, so the nat mapping is in place and working because we got the packet from that port.
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Most of my customers have forwarded ports in their firewalls/routers. Those ports will not be used if rport is turned on.
I currently got a problem with a customer who is using an old Windows 2000 server as firewall/router. It wont let packets through when using rport. It would work if rport was turned off and all communication was done using the configured port.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
You want rport otherwise NAT HELL will begin.
/b
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Well, yes. But snom can only turn off rport through provisioning and only in the latest firmware.
It would be great if it could be turned off in FS too, per user account.
_______________________________________________ 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
The one requested? you seem to be indicating that the firewall uses different nat mappings for inbound vs outbound. When using rport, it doesn't matter what the local port on the phone is. The phone make a connection to the outside world, the firewall maps it to some port, we don't care what. When we respond, we respond to the port we got it from, and we tell the guy that port. it doesn't matter what port the client or anyone else thought it was, it only matters what the firewall chose. Mike On Apr 15, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
It doesnt make sense. But the fact is that the FW/router assigns another port than the requested one.
I found a setting in latest firmware for snom which disables rport. But when turned off, it stops using the external IP that stun found. Turning off RPORT should not turn of external ip detection, right?
My FS server is on a public IP. Can I tell FS to always send replies to received-ip instead of the one specified in the request (if the specified ip is a RFC1918 ip?)
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote: This does not make any sense. It limits outbound connections based on source port? rport would make us tell the guy the port he DID come from, so the nat mapping is in place and working because we got the packet from that port.
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Most of my customers have forwarded ports in their firewalls/routers. Those ports will not be used if rport is turned on.
I currently got a problem with a customer who is using an old Windows 2000 server as firewall/router. It wont let packets through when using rport. It would work if rport was turned off and all communication was done using the configured port.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote: You want rport otherwise NAT HELL will begin.
/b
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:
Well, yes. But snom can only turn off rport through provisioning and only in the latest firmware.
It would be great if it could be turned off in FS too, per user account.
participants (3)
-
Brian West
-
Jonas Gauffin
-
Michael Jerris