[asterisk-users] Problems with 2 Asterisk servers on same LAN

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Tim Panton <thp at westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 7 Sep 2008, at 08:38, Gordon Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, hugolivude wrote:
>>
>>> OS = CentOS 5
>>> Asterisk = 1.4.21
>>> Router = WhiteRussian 0.9
>>>
>>> Not sure whether I have a problem w/ Asterisk or White Russian
>>> config,
>>> so I'm posting to both lists.
>>>
>>> I have 2 Asterisk servers running behind a Linux router w/ White
>>> Russian. I'm having a lot of trouble with REGISTER.  The servers are
>>> set up this way:
>>>
>>> 192.168.2.160, SIP 5060, RTP 10000-20000
>>> 192.168.2.170, SIP 5070 RTP 21000-25000
>>>
>>> On the 192.168.2.170 server I set rtp.conf, with the 21000-25000
>>> ports
>>> and I set bindport=5070 in sip.conf.
>>>
>>> I _think_ I have the ports forwarded correctly on my router. I set
>>> DESTINATION ports for the SIP & RTP ports above such that ports
>>> 5060 &
>>> 10000-20000 go to 192.168.2.160 while ports 5070 & 21000-25000 got to
>>> 192.168.2.170.  Frankly I find the Firewall GUI a little
>>> unintuitive ?
>>> here's what /etc/config/firewall looks like:
>>>
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=5060:192.168.2.160
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=10000-20000:192.168.2.160
>>>
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=5070:192.168.2.170
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=20001-25000:192.168.2.170
>>>
>>> This doesn't work though.  I cannot get DIDs on the 192.168.2.170 to
>>> register.  Ethereal indicates that the message gets sent and the
>>> server responds.  The server seems to be responding on the right port
>>> 5070, but it gets a 401 from (one of) my machine(s)!
>>>
>>> Here's the weirdest part for me.  While trouble shooting, I tried
>>> port
>>> forwarding everything to 192.168.2.170:
>>>
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=5060:192.168.2.170
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=10000-20000:192.168.2.170
>>>
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=5070:192.168.2.170
>>> forward:proto=udp dport=20001-25000:192.168.2.170
>>>
>>> The DiDs on 192.168.2.170 still don't register, but the one on
>>> 192.168.2.160 continues to work.  How's that possible if the ports
>>> aren't forwarding there?!!
>>
>> Do the remote devices know to contact you on port 5070 rather than the
>> default of 5060?
>>
>> Gordon
>>
>
> This is one of those cases where it is almost certainly simpler to
> use IAX2 not SIP.
> You will need zero config on the router and it will 'just work'
> - assuming your provider supports IAX that is.
>
>
>

It may be "simpler" to get "working" but will it be simpler to
diagnose the audio issues that will invariably come down the pipe?

How about the rather popular error "I should never be called!"?
Google it with the quotes.  It seems to get called quite a bit for
something that should "Never" be called.

I think I would spend a day or two getting SIP working properly, now,
rather than spending days trying to figure out audio issues and having
to revisit and get SIP working properly in the future.  After people
are actually relying on the system and already have a bad
experience/opinion associated with the "New Phone System".

Thanks,
Steve Totaro