[Asterisk-Users] Asterisk + BudgeTone (behind NAT)
John Todd
jtodd at loligo.com
Fri Jan 23 19:59:52 MST 2004
At 9:17 PM -0500 1/23/04, Owen Kelso wrote:
>I've been following up on my problem, which I previously described as:
>
>> I've concluded that the Netgear router (FVS318) performing the NAT is
>> corrupting the outgoing RTP packets. Traces confirmed that the BudgeTone
>> is sending them out with a UDP checksum of 0 but the next hop after the
>> Netgear router they are set to a non-zero value (an incorrect one).
>> Asterisk is never even seeing the packets because the kernel is
>> recognizing them as corrupt and dropping them, hence the recvfrom()
>> "Resource temporarily unavailable" errors in rtp.c.
>
>Here is Netgear's response:
>
>---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
>Subject: RE: Webform contact request [#<removed>]
>From: support at esupport.netgear.com
>Date: Fri, January 23, 2004 7:36 pm
>To: <removed>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>SIP VOIP phones do not work with netgear routers. The router will always
>set a value in the checksum.
>
>
>Regards
>
><removed>
>Netgear Support
>support at esupport.netgear.com
>
>Please help us serve you better by clicking here
>mailto:support at netgear.com?subject=Feedback_us if you would like to
>provide any other valuable feedback. (Note: this feedback is not sent to
>an agent so you will not receive a reply.)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Not exactly what I call stellar customer service!
>
>I realize this may not be the best solution -- actually, it's probably not
>even a good solution -- but has anyone experimented with using the Linux
>SO_NO_CHECK setsockopt() option? It looks like it could be used to ignore
>the checksums for the RTP packets.
>
>Owen
Time to dump the Netgear router. That's an unacceptable answer for a
router vendor to say "Oh, well, for this MAJOR protocol we're going
to simply corrupt those packets so they're unusable." What!?
JT
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list