[Spce-user] multi-homed config

[gerry kernan]

Hi Andrew 

It was just the network location I was testing from , it had a Sonicwall firewall when I disable Nat option b2bua on the firewall all is ok 

Thanks

Gerry  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Mar 2014, at 15:41, "Andrew Pogrebennyk" <apogrebennyk at sipwise.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gerry,
> 
> this looks like a NAT problem because there is no response from behind
> NAT. Looks like the client doesn't receive the INVITE. It's unlikely
> that this is related to extra_sockets. Are all users having this
> problem? Are all or most of them behind this particular NAT/router?
> 
> Check if the SPCE sends OPTIONS pings to the right port (from which
> the registration was received, this is location.received column in
> kamailio DB). Also check if the UA supports the NAT keep-alive feature
> and try enabling it.
> 
> Regards,
> Andrew
> 
>> On 03/06/2014 04:36 PM, gerry kernan wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Apologies for more questions , but I seem to have broken something
>> in sipwise. When I added the extra_sockets option and applied the
>> config I haven't been able to route calls. If I try calling an
>> extension it goes straight to VM. , sip trace below is incoming
>> call to 35315549053 , the sip subscriber for this number is
>> polycomvvx at 78.137.191.37.  This phone is connect via NAT from WAN
>> address 82.141.241.25. and have an LAN address of 192.168.200.134. 
>> I don't see any enteries for this address in the sip debug. Would
>> the change ive make cause this? I have remove the entery from
>> config.yml and re-applied the config but still have the problem.
>> 
>> Mar  6 15:25:11 sipwise lb[18119]: NOTICE: <script>: Relaying
>> request, du='sip:82.141.241.25:33179', fs='udp:78.137.191.37:5060'
>> - R=sip:polycomvvx at 82.141.241.25:11254
>> ID=oFfxx8rh.Z8Hy0 at 89.234.66.178
>>