Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Strange problem with VoIP adapter

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    15 Posts 4 Posters 18.4k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • E
      Erik
      last edited by

      Hmm, I don't think I should be opening the port 55813 on the firewall. I tried rebooting the adapter, and the I get NATMapped Port: 53050. One more time, and I get 51048. If I understand correctly, outgoing connections are assigned a random port number, e.g. my connection to this site in the state table:

      Type  Proto  Source->Router->Destination            State
      self    tcp    216.135.66.8:80<-192.168.0.7:1407  ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED

      The port 1407 changes for every new connection I make to this site. Likewise, it seems the NAT mapped port is randomly assigned. My guess is that pfsense is assigning the port and somehow my adapter is picking it up. These are the relevant entries in my state table:

      Type Proto Source->Router->Destination State
      self  udp  192.168.0.1:53<-192.168.0.9:26789                                          MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE
      self  udp  212.130.74.56:5060<-192.168.0.9:5060                                    NO_TRAFFIC:SINGLE
      self  udp  212.130.74.60:3478<-192.168.0.9:5060                                    MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE
      self  udp  212.130.74.61:3479<-192.168.0.9:5060                                    MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE
      self  udp  192.168.0.9:5060->85.233.238.xxx:52852->212.130.74.56:5060  SINGLE:NO_TRAFFIC
      self  udp  192.168.0.9:5060->85.233.238.xxx:51028->212.130.74.60:3478  MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE
      self  udp  192.168.0.9:5060->85.233.238.xxx:53530->212.130.74.61:3479  MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE

      I'm really on shaky ground here, but the first one is easy; it's a DNS lookup. Then we have three connections to to Telefin servers, plus three connections more, using seemingly random ports on the firewall WAN port. If I open e.g. port 51028, I will get an incoming connection from Telefin (but still no association), but otherwise I have no incoming connections.

      Erik

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • E
        Erik
        last edited by

        Sorry to reply to myself, but Wikipedia can be your friend sometimes…

        My adapter apparently calls a STUN server to establish a connection between clients behind NAT. Quoting Wikipedia, "It will not work with symmetric NAT" and quoting the adapter status page, "detected NAT type is symmetric NAT".

        I have now tried disabling STUN on the adapter and using NAT to forward the WAN ports 5060, 5061 and 5004 to my adapter:

        If      Proto      Ext. port range  NAT IP          Int. port range
        WAN  UDP        5060 - 5061      192.168.0.9  5060 - 5061
        WAN  TCP/UDP  5004                192.168.0.9  5004

        My state table now reads:
        self  udp  192.168.0.1:53<-192.168.0.9:26789                                          MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE
        self  udp  212.130.74.56:5060<-192.168.0.9:5060                                    NO_TRAFFIC:SINGLE
        self  udp  192.168.0.9:5060->85.233.238.191:52855->212.130.74.56:5060  SINGLE:NO_TRAFFIC
        self  udp  85.233.238.191:5060<-212.130.74.56:5060                                NO_TRAFFIC:SINGLE

        Still no luck, though. Why is the last state not going through to 192.168.0.9 when I have the above NAT rules?

        Erik

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          hoba
          last edited by

          Maybe the sip-proxy (siproxd) package is worth a try.  Give it a shot.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • E
            Erik
            last edited by

            Damn, there is no package support for embedded platforms. I'm on a WRAP board :-/

            I tried loading my working m0n0wall config file into pfsense, and the VoIP adapter still reports "symmetric NAT" as the NAT type, whereas it was "(port?) restricted cone" in m0n0wall. Is there any way to change the NAT type in pfsense?

            Erik

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • K
              keefe007
              last edited by

              Did you get this working ever?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E
                Erik
                last edited by

                No, unfortunately I had to switch back to m0n0wall since I lacked the time to investigate further. But I've aquired another CF card so testing is easier now, if anyone has suggestions.

                Update: apparently Phil Regnauld from BSD-DK has it working with a Grandstream adapter by adding

                set timeout { udp.first 60, udp.single 60, udp.multiple 60 }
                nat on $ext_if from $int_net to any -> $ext_ip static-port

                to /etc/pf.conf - the important part being the keyword "static-port". I'll try it when I have some spare time in the weekend.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  sullrich
                  last edited by

                  Beta 2 will include a static-port option in advanced outbound-nat.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • E
                    Erik
                    last edited by

                    Cool! Thanks for the notice, I'll let you know how it works out when beta2 is out.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • K
                      keefe007
                      last edited by

                      I was able to get my asterisk SIP server working behind the pfsense firewall by using 1:1 NAT for that box.

                      It looks like regular NAT is symmetric while 1:1 uses cone NAT, which is what SIP needs.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        sullrich
                        last edited by

                        Newer testing versions are available at: http://www.pfsense.com/~sullrich/?M=D

                        Look for "TESTING" dirs.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • K
                          keefe007
                          last edited by

                          @sullrich:

                          Newer testing versions are available at: http://www.pfsense.com/~sullrich/?M=D

                          Look for "TESTING" dirs.

                          What does this version have do make SIP work better?

                          Will it support multiple SIP devices connecting through the router?  Such as multiple ATAs with multiple VoIP lines.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • H
                            hoba
                            last edited by

                            It includes the static port option.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • E
                              Erik
                              last edited by

                              So, I finally managed to get time to look at the problem. I installed BETA2 (leaps and bounds better than BETA1 in almost every area, thanks everybody!), and I'm glad to say that the static-port did the trick. Quick summary:

                              Enabled advanced outbound NAT, changed the default outbound rule to enable static-port. Reboot adapter. That's it!

                              I'm not sure if I still need the following rules on the NAT: port forward page:

                              WAN  UDP  5060 - 5061  192.168.0.9  5060 - 5061
                              WAN TCP/UDP 5004 192.168.0.9 5004

                              Will have to test that.

                              Thanks to everybody who replied, end everyone who has worked so hard to make pfsense better!

                              Erik

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.