Re: Asterisk Remote Extension

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Gordon Henderson, Aug 24, 2008.

  1. In article <>,
    Jono <> wrote:
    >Hello,
    >
    >I'm stying to get a remote extension working through a Dreytek 2800
    >router.
    >
    >Try as I might, I cannot get the phone to register.
    >
    >As the router has VoIP-ability, I'm assuming it it preventing
    >registration in some way...
    >
    >The relevant ports are forwarded.
    >
    >Anyone able to tell me where to fiddle to get this working?


    Telnet into the router

    Type:

    sys sip alg 0

    Also make sure the asterisk knows the extnernal IP address of the router
    in sip.conf, and use stun on the remote phone. Port-forward 5060 and
    10000-20000 on the rotuer to the asterisk box.

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Aug 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    Jono <> wrote:
    >After serious thinking Jono wrote :
    >> Gordon Henderson has brought this to us :
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Jono <> wrote:
    >>>> Hello,
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm stying to get a remote extension working through a Dreytek 2800
    >>>> router.
    >>>>
    >>>> Try as I might, I cannot get the phone to register.
    >>>>
    >>>> As the router has VoIP-ability, I'm assuming it it preventing registration
    >>>> in some way...
    >>>>
    >>>> The relevant ports are forwarded.
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyone able to tell me where to fiddle to get this working?
    >>>
    >>> Telnet into the router
    >>>
    >>> Type:
    >>>
    >>> sys sip alg 0
    >>>
    >>> Also make sure the asterisk knows the extnernal IP address of the router
    >>> in sip.conf, and use stun on the remote phone. Port-forward 5060 and
    >>> 10000-20000 on the rotuer to the asterisk box.
    >>>
    >>> Gordon

    >>
    >> I've run sys sip_alg & rebooted.
    >>
    >> Got ports 5060-5069 & 10000-20000 forwarded.
    >>
    >> The PBX works registering to an external SIP service.
    >>
    >> The remote phone works registering to other PBXs.
    >>
    >> Confuddled.

    >
    >I also have an entry in sip.conf for the public IP address
    >
    >externip=xx.xxx.xxx.xxx (where x's are the real IP)
    >
    >This is the output from Snom SIP Trace:
    >
    >Received from udp:xx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 at 24/8/2008 13:20:32:388 (303
    >bytes):
    >
    >SIP/2.0 400 Bad Request
    >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
    >192.168.3.106:2063;branch=z9hG4bK-zzooq4ol0yjl;rport=2063;received=90.199.122.93
    >From: "NDS" <sip:>;tag=r5rlrtv9xi
    >To: "NDS" <sip:>;tag=aUO-32641
    >Call-ID: 3c267019e973-qtokwordm15t
    >CSeq: 22 REGISTER
    >Content-Length: 0


    Throw the Draytek away. I used to like them, but growing to hate them
    now.

    If they are 'v' series (with built-in ATA's) then try setting the SIP
    port on them to 7000 (or something other than 5060) I recall having to
    do that on an older 2600v model..

    They've got horrible NAT issues too. I'm moving to Zyxels... (or DSX's
    with built-in pppoe capability :)

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Aug 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gordon Henderson

    alexd Guest

    Gordon Henderson wrote:

    > They've got horrible NAT issues too. I'm moving to Zyxels... (or DSX's
    > with built-in pppoe capability


    Jono wrote:

    > Gordon Henderson was thinking very hard :
    >> If they are 'v' series (with built-in ATA's) then try setting the SIP
    >> port on them to 7000 (or something other than 5060)

    >
    > Well, bu**er me.
    >
    > I hadn't considered changing the ports in the unconfigured SIP accounts
    > in the router.
    >
    > It's worked.


    This kind of thing makes me wonder why Draytek gets so many
    recommendations. Zyxel kit offers by far better bang:buck ratio. Cisco
    kit offers a lot more features and flexibility. We have a client base
    with about four Zyxels to every Cisco, and in the past year, I've swapped
    out two 877s to one Presige 660H. And the Cisco stuff comes with a 90-day
    warranty too [not sure how legal that is in .eu?].

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    21:30:47 up 44 days, 8 min, 2 users, load average: 0.16, 0.11, 0.05
    They call me titless because I have no tits
     
    alexd, Aug 24, 2008
    #3
  4. In article <48b1c62e$0$630$>,
    alexd <> wrote:
    >Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >
    >> They've got horrible NAT issues too. I'm moving to Zyxels... (or DSX's
    >> with built-in pppoe capability

    >
    >Jono wrote:
    >
    >> Gordon Henderson was thinking very hard :
    >>> If they are 'v' series (with built-in ATA's) then try setting the SIP
    >>> port on them to 7000 (or something other than 5060)

    >>
    >> Well, bu**er me.
    >>
    >> I hadn't considered changing the ports in the unconfigured SIP accounts
    >> in the router.
    >>
    >> It's worked.

    >
    >This kind of thing makes me wonder why Draytek gets so many
    >recommendations.


    Way back they were actually quite good - I installed lots of them, built
    up VPNs with them and so on.

    What then happened is that they seemed to upgrade their firmware to add
    new features, etc. but the quality seemed to drop. I can't make my
    laptop reliably connect to a 2600's Wi-Fi for exmaple, and the 2600,
    even with the latest firmware has some really bad NAT bugs in it.

    Oh and the VPNs... Worked mostly OK in the days of 512Kb/256Kb ADSL, but
    I found out their throuput limit with encryption on was 1.5Mb/sec and
    jitter suffered really badly with it. Obviously it was donw in software
    on the weedly little overloaded processor they have in them.

    I'm told that the newer ones are better, but ...

    >Zyxel kit offers by far better bang:buck ratio. Cisco
    >kit offers a lot more features and flexibility. We have a client base
    >with about four Zyxels to every Cisco, and in the past year, I've swapped
    >out two 877s to one Presige 660H. And the Cisco stuff comes with a 90-day
    >warranty too [not sure how legal that is in .eu?].


    I think the Zyxels are Linux based, but I could be wrong... I'm fed-up
    enough with most other routers to be in the process of putting adding
    all the bits to my PBXs to enable pppoe, proper traffic shaping, dhcp,
    routing, etc. for SMEs - then it'll just need an adsl modem, or a router
    in pass-through mode.

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Aug 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Gordon Henderson

    Iain Guest

    Gordon Henderson wrote:

    > Oh and the VPNs... Worked mostly OK in the days of 512Kb/256Kb ADSL, but
    > I found out their throuput limit with encryption on was 1.5Mb/sec and
    > jitter suffered really badly with it. Obviously it was donw in software
    > on the weedly little overloaded processor they have in them.


    The VPN is the reason we still use Drayteks. I have yet to find any
    other adsl modem/router that has a useable VPN endpoint that doesn't
    need special software on the client end and/or pay for an additional
    licence fee.

    If anyone knows of any, I'd be delighted to get details!
     
    Iain, Aug 25, 2008
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Iain <> wrote:
    >Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >
    >> Oh and the VPNs... Worked mostly OK in the days of 512Kb/256Kb ADSL, but
    >> I found out their throuput limit with encryption on was 1.5Mb/sec and
    >> jitter suffered really badly with it. Obviously it was donw in software
    >> on the weedly little overloaded processor they have in them.

    >
    >The VPN is the reason we still use Drayteks. I have yet to find any
    >other adsl modem/router that has a useable VPN endpoint that doesn't
    >need special software on the client end and/or pay for an additional
    >licence fee.


    Indeed - and I used from for site to site VPNs, but they do support
    PPtP type links as well - all still done in software. I did eventually
    remove encryption on a few links where security was less an issue than
    connecting offices together and did then get the full whack after that...

    I've overcome this limitation by using SSH and tunneling ports via the
    SSH link to an device on the inside - which fortunately is usually one
    of my PBXs these days and it runs Linux.

    >If anyone knows of any, I'd be delighted to get details!


    Zyxels support ipsec, and I'm told that's a royal PITA to setup on a
    MS Windows box (I've never tried)

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Aug 25, 2008
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Sale
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    12,048
    Robin Walker
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Vincent Delporte
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,699
    Vincent Delporte
    Jun 27, 2006
  3. linker3000
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    813
    paul123
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. Linker3000
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    594
  5. Tim
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    549
    Gordon Henderson
    Aug 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page