On 2006/10/12 13:57, ropers wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > or, for that matter, why I needed to enable
> >> > > net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf for the bridge to
work.
> >
> >just checked and you definitely don't need net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
On 12/10/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > or, for that matter, why I needed to enable
> > > net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf for the bridge to work.
just checked and you definitely don't need net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
to bridge. net.inet.ip.forwarding is for IP pa
On 2006/10/12 14:39, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:41:49AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2006/10/12 01:15, ropers wrote:
> > > Neither do I understand what really goes on during IP forwarding as
> > > opposed to bridging
> >
> > with forwarding(routing) tcp/ip pac
I'd like to thank everybody for their comments. I'm listening and
learning. Keep those posts coming! :)
--ropers
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:41:49AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2006/10/12 01:15, ropers wrote:
> > Neither do I understand what really goes on during IP forwarding as
> > opposed to bridging
>
> with forwarding(routing) tcp/ip packets have a destination IP address
> which isn't bound to an
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:31:29PM -0400, Martin Gignac wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Jon Radel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the
> >>> standard itself and www.opensip.org might already give you what you
> >want.
> >>
> >> Hmm, wasn't awa
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:06:12AM -0400, Martin Gignac wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm familiar with 3261. However the SIP proxy that 3261 talks
> about has a completely different function than what an ALG/SBC does.
> Maybe I shouldn't have used
On 10/12/06, Martin Gignac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, I'm familiar with 3261. However the SIP proxy that 3261 talks
about has a completely different function than what an ALG/SBC does.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "SIP proxy" in my previous
e-mails. My bad.
I don't know if it'll
On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:22:06PM -0400, Martin Gignac wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the standard
> >itself and www.opensip.org
On 10/12/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very Sorry Martin. I was not in a good mood this morning and I also got angry
since I didn't know enough to help you out.
Have a nice day! Hope you don't take it to heart.
No sweat. :-)
--
"Suburbia is where the developer bulldo
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:26:21AM +0530, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:22:06PM -0400, Martin Gignac wrote:
> > On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the standard
> > >itself a
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:22:06PM -0400, Martin Gignac wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the standard
> >itself and www.opensip.org might already give you what you want.
>
> Hmm, wasn't aware
Hi again Jens,
On 10/11/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006/10/12 01:15, ropers wrote:
> Or maybe I have gotten a small chunk off of that big fat 123.0.0.0/8
> network to play with. So let's say I have been allocated
> 123.123.123.0/24.
Normally, you get a separate address _
On 2006/10/12 01:15, ropers wrote:
> Or maybe I have gotten a small chunk off of that big fat 123.0.0.0/8
> network to play with. So let's say I have been allocated
> 123.123.123.0/24.
Normally, you get a separate address _as_well_. Let's say 123.4.5.6/30.
Say you don't run a dynamic routing proto
On 11/10/06, Martin Gignac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey Jens,
On 10/11/06, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH, if you do have enough public IPs to play with, I'd still
> consider bridging and using only public IPs (then you don't need to do
> VLANs or NAT).
To satisfy my own curiosity,
Hey Jens,
On 10/11/06, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OTOH, if you do have enough public IPs to play with, I'd still
consider bridging and using only public IPs (then you don't need to do
VLANs or NAT).
To satisfy my own curiosity, what are the advantages in your view that
bridging offers
On 11/10/06, Martin Gignac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I've tried siproxd, but my lack of knowledge has caused me to fail
> to get this working properly.
Then using your available public IPs should be the ticket.
-Martin
Yah, it's becoming clearer. Use whatever is cleaner and easier to
On 10/9/06, Patrick - South Valley Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I have a box I installed OpenBSD 3.9 on. I'm trying to get this box to
function as our office firewall. Here's the catch - we have VOIP phones
that contact an external VOIP server outside of our firewall. I've been
On 10/11/06, Jon Radel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the
>> standard itself and www.opensip.org might already give you what you want.
>
> Hmm, wasn't aware of that. Do you have any specific RFC or 3GPP spec
> number that I could check
Martin Gignac wrote:
>
> On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the
>> standard itself and www.opensip.org might already give you what you want.
>
> Hmm, wasn't aware of that. Do you have any specific RFC o
Yes, I've tried siproxd, but my lack of knowledge has caused me to fail
to get this working properly.
Then using your available public IPs should be the ticket.
-Martin
--
"Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names
the streets after them."
Yes, I've tried siproxd, but my lack of knowledge has caused me to fail
to get this working properly.
I'm VERY excited with all the responses you folks gave me. Now I have
to take the time to read all them over. I'll respond to the other posts
very soon.
Thank you once again for all the he
On 10/11/06, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If my memory serves me right, SIP actually has ALG built into the standard
itself and www.opensip.org might already give you what you want.
Hmm, wasn't aware of that. Do you have any specific RFC or 3GPP spec
number that I could che
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 09:32:07AM -0400, Martin Gignac wrote:
> On 10/11/06, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I've just had another thought:
> >
> >Why do the IP phones have to have public IPs?
> >
> >Is this because giving them NATted, private range IPs previously
> >didn't work so well?
>
>
On 11/10/06, Martin Gignac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/11/06, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just had another thought:
>
> Why do the IP phones have to have public IPs?
>
> Is this because giving them NATted, private range IPs previously
> didn't work so well?
The VoIP phones Patr
On 10/11/06, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just had another thought:
Why do the IP phones have to have public IPs?
Is this because giving them NATted, private range IPs previously
didn't work so well?
The VoIP phones Patrick is using are probably (my guess) using the
Session Initiati
We currently have a firewall using a Cisco PIX server. Everything on
this firewall is using a static ip of some sort. There is a range of IP
addresses inside the PIX firewall that are being used for DHCP.
Just to make sure: you say everything on this firewall is using a
static IP of some sort,
Thanks for the response Martin. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me
rephrase everything in this email:
We currently have a firewall using a Cisco PIX server. Everything on
this firewall is using a static ip of some sort. There is a range of IP
addresses inside the PIX firewall that are bei
What other information can I provide you to help me come up with a solution?
A quick ASCII diagram of the PIX and the subnets in front and back
might help (I'm the visual type).
The only subnet you mention with public IPs in your first e-mail is
216.139.44.142/26, in which the IPs mentioned in
We currently have a Cisco PIX firewall that we are using for our office
firewall and our VOIP phones. The guy who was here before me only gave
the office computers 32 available DHCP addresses, and set all the VOIP
phones (Cisco 7960 and Grandstream phones) on static ips.
What other informatio
On 10/9/06, Patrick - South Valley Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Get two NICS for the OpenBSD box.
2) Give the first NIC an external routeable IP address, ex.
216.139.44.142 subnet 255.255.255.192
3) Give the second NIC an internal IP address, ex. 10.30.1.1 subnet mask
255.255.255.0
4)
On 10/10/06, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/10/06, Patrick - South Valley Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a box I installed OpenBSD 3.9 on. I'm trying to get this box to
> function as our office firewall. Here's the catch - we have VOIP phones
> that contact an
On 10/10/06, Patrick - South Valley Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I have a box I installed OpenBSD 3.9 on. I'm trying to get this box to
function as our office firewall. Here's the catch - we have VOIP phones
that contact an external VOIP server outside of our firewall. I've bee
On 10/9/06, Patrick - South Valley Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Get two NICS for the OpenBSD box.
2) Give the first NIC an external routeable IP address, ex.
216.139.44.142 subnet 255.255.255.192
3) Give the second NIC an internal IP address, ex. 10.30.1.1 subnet mask
255.255.255.0
4)
Hi all,
I have a box I installed OpenBSD 3.9 on. I'm trying to get this box to
function as our office firewall. Here's the catch - we have VOIP phones
that contact an external VOIP server outside of our firewall. I've been
doing some research and found out that VOIP phones don't do NAT very
35 matches
Mail list logo
