Re: [Siproxd-users] ipv6, SVR, sip2sip etc.

[Thomas R. <tr...@gm...>]

Hi Tim,

1) IPv6:
Implementing IPv6 support on SIP and RTP level as well as relaying SIP/RTP
between IPv4 and IPv6 is not on the TODO list.
- Relaying between IPv4/IPv6 endpoints is a task that I see on the PBX or VoIP
provider level.
- If I have native IPv6 connectivity, NAT should not be an issue at all.


2) SRV records
They are on the TODO list, but no commitment up to when they will be supported
exists yet. Your way of getting it to work is the recommended workaround :-)
However, this workaround does not deal with multiple SRV records (e.g. when
using redundancy).


3) One siproxd instance can handle multiple clients (as long as each client
uses it's own SIP account). Siproxd should include as little call handling
logic as possible, so implementing call forking to support multiple devices on
the same SIP account would heavily increase complexity of the code (too much
complexity in my opinion).
What is your approach to deal with this? I could maybe imaging some unique
identifier per local client that is used to distinguish the local devices and
pass all the registrations through to the registrar.


Best regards,
/Thomas


On 7/28/19 11:57 AM, Tim Woodall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've been using siproxd successfully on debian for a while now, thanks!
> 
> Some comments and questions.
> 
> 1. My setup is almost exclusively IPV6. I've some local changes to
> enable debugging via an IPv6 connection. I'd like to extend it to
> enabling internal IPv4 to external IPv6 proxy (I have ipv4 only hardware
> for making sip calls) and internal IPv6 to external IPv4 (some providers
> are ipv4 only)
> 
> Is there any general interest in this? I don't have a huge amount of
> time to work on this and I've got to get permission from work to
> contribute (I don't think it will be a problem but I don't want to make
> the effort if the general consensus is IPv6 is not appropriate for this
> application)
> 
> 2. SRV records are not supported - this breaks, for example, sip2sip.
> However, in that case I've got it working with:
> 
> outbound_domain_name = sip2sip.info
> outbound_domain_host = proxy.sipthor.net
> outbound_domain_port = 5060
> 
> This should, of course, be looked up via srv records.
> 
> Any plans to support this? If I eventually get around to it it will be
> after IPv6 DNS support.
> 
> 3. It's annoying to have to run a separate proxy for each client that
> shares an upstream - the registrations get overwritten. I've made some
> progress on removing this restriction but it needs completely reworking
> for the 0.8.2 release and it definitely still had bugs. Has anyone else
> already solved this one? Or knows that it's never going to work and I'm
> wasting my time?
> 
> 
> Despite all the above, siproxd has been a lifesaver. Since switching
> from PTSN to VOIP I've been dependent on reliable NAT traversal and it's
> the only thing that has worked for me.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Siproxd-users mailing list
> Sip...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/siproxd-users
>