[Asterisk-Users] Re: Sipura and STUN (was: rejected NOTIFY re quests)

[Steven Kokinos]

Beyond this, you can still just use the NAT keepalive in the Sipura. 
While It only  provides for either a NOTIFY or REGISTER (which both 
generate errors in asterisk) if you change it to something else (I just 
have it send blank, but a few ... or anything will do) asterisk won't 
complain and the data is sent every few seconds, keeping the firewall 
open.

I've also found setting the register to something low (I use 300s) also 
helps when you do have to use qualify, in case asterisk loses the 
connection the device will only be offline until the next register.

-Steve

On May 22, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Darren Nay wrote:

> Sipura does include STUN as an option.  It has for quite some time.  
> We are
> using it with all of our Sipuras behind NAT'd gateways and it works 
> great!
>
> Try upgrading to the latest Sipura firmware rev.
>
> Darren Nay
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Todd [mailto:jtodd at loligo.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:57 PM
>> To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
>> Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Sipura and STUN (was: rejected NOTIFY
>> requests)
>>
>> At 7:36 PM +0200 on 5/22/04, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>> Sending NOTIFY to Asterisk is an error, but a workaround. Since 
>>> Asterisk
>>> can handled the NAT traversal all by itself with Qualify (as John 
>>> points
>>> out) disabling the NOTIFY will not change anything.
>>>
>>> The NOTIFY will in no way affect the status - unreachable/reachable.
>>>
>>> Another problem with the SIPURA is the lack of a working STUN 
>>> solution.
>>> Even Grandstream works better with NAT today.
>>> /O
>>
>> Do you have difficulties with the Sipura SPA-2000 (or other Sipura
>> boxes) and Asterisk?  I've found no problems, even behind NAT, though
>> I have only tried behind one or two NAT devices (OpenBSD and Apple
>> Airport.)
>>
>> It's surprising that Sipura doesn't include STUN as an option - their
>> list of options is so huge that I always assumed I had just missed
>> it, but now that I look closer I suppose you're right.  Do Asterisk
>> users even really need STUN?  I've never found it to be required
>> after the NAT issues were worked out of Asterisk...
>>
>> JT
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Asterisk-Users mailing list
>> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>