Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
IPv6 capable ATA ?
334 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrew Benham
Mar 22, 2017, 1:42:57 PM3/22/17
to
So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
but many IPv6 addresses.
I reckon I simply need an ATA which can do IPv6. But are there any such
devices ? Nothing suitable is shown on
http://support.aa.net.uk/Category:VoIP_Phones
Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
but many IPv6 addresses.
I reckon I simply need an ATA which can do IPv6. But are there any such
devices ? Nothing suitable is shown on
http://support.aa.net.uk/Category:VoIP_Phones
Tony van der Hoff
Mar 22, 2017, 2:12:29 PM3/22/17
to
There are minimal setup instructions, but it's fairly self-explicit.
I used to use a Cisco SPA-112 <spit>, but had no end of trouble with it.
Wouldn't touch one again. I guess it was faulty. Can't remember whether
id did IPv6.
Bob Eager
Mar 22, 2017, 5:50:13 PM3/22/17
to
really well.
However, none of it seems to do IPv6.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Dave Liquorice
Mar 22, 2017, 9:17:45 PM3/22/17
to
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:40:01 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Benham wrote:
> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
> Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
> but many IPv6 addresses.
Home::1 here also but I've not got myself a bunch of IPv6 address's
> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
> Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
> but many IPv6 addresses.
yet. I do run SIP behind NAT but with Sipgate as the provider and
using STUN. Kit is a Siemens Gigaet N300A IP, combined POTS, SIP,
DECT & TAM box, IPv4.
I played with AA's SIP service but, IIRC, couldn't solve a one way
audio issue or maybe I could solve that but something else would
break.
> I reckon I simply need an ATA which can do IPv6. But are there any such
> devices ?
thin on the ground. I guess most people are happy to have uPnP
punching holes in the firewall that they don't know they have.
Try a look on broadbandbuyer, they tend to have a large selection of
things they stock.
--
Cheers
Dave.
jelv
Mar 23, 2017, 8:20:52 AM3/23/17
to
On 23/03/2017 01:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:40:01 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Benham wrote:
>
>> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
>> Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
>> but many IPv6 addresses.
>
> Home::1 here also but I've not got myself a bunch of IPv6 address's
> yet. I do run SIP behind NAT but with Sipgate as the provider and
> using STUN. Kit is a Siemens Gigaet N300A IP, combined POTS, SIP,
> DECT & TAM box, IPv4.
>
I'm also using sipgate on a home::1 FTTC connection. My phone is a
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:40:01 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Benham wrote:
>
>> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
>> Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
>> but many IPv6 addresses.
>
> Home::1 here also but I've not got myself a bunch of IPv6 address's
> yet. I do run SIP behind NAT but with Sipgate as the provider and
> using STUN. Kit is a Siemens Gigaet N300A IP, combined POTS, SIP,
> DECT & TAM box, IPv4.
>
Grandstream GXP1400
--
jelv
DaverN
Mar 23, 2017, 10:17:49 AM3/23/17
to
On 23/03/2017 01:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:40:01 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Benham wrote:
>
>> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
>> Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
>> but many IPv6 addresses.
>
> Home::1 here also but I've not got myself a bunch of IPv6 address's
> yet. I do run SIP behind NAT but with Sipgate as the provider and
> using STUN. Kit is a Siemens Gigaet N300A IP, combined POTS, SIP,
> DECT & TAM box, IPv4.
>
> I played with AA's SIP service but, IIRC, couldn't solve a one way
> audio issue or maybe I could solve that but something else would
> break.
It might help to know that I'm running a Gigaset N300 IP behind a NAT'd
>
>> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP Knowledge
>> Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single IPv4 address
>> but many IPv6 addresses.
>
> Home::1 here also but I've not got myself a bunch of IPv6 address's
> yet. I do run SIP behind NAT but with Sipgate as the provider and
> using STUN. Kit is a Siemens Gigaet N300A IP, combined POTS, SIP,
> DECT & TAM box, IPv4.
>
> I played with AA's SIP service but, IIRC, couldn't solve a one way
> audio issue or maybe I could solve that but something else would
> break.
IPv4 address via a home::1 connection, using AA's SIP service. Like you
(OP), I was unable to find easily an IPv6 capable ATA.
Long story short, I configured the Gigaset to use a non-standard source
port and voice data range, with dest. server port set to the standard
5060. The timeout on the Gigaset for connections is 180 sec., whilst
the default UDP tracking timeout on my MikroTik router (RB951G) was also
180 sec. I couldn't achieve a stable connection until I increased the
Mikrotik timeout to 240 sec. and, tempting fate, the SIP service now
seems to work well. I didn't need to enable the "SIP Helper" on the
router. I've set the AA line profile to 95%.
I realise that most other consumer routers don't permit the conntrack
timeouts to be adjusted as easily, but I thought I'd throw in this
anecdote just in case it does help.
--
DaverN
Dave Liquorice
Mar 23, 2017, 12:01:40 PM3/23/17
to
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:18:58 +0000, DaverN wrote:
> Long story short, I configured the Gigaset to use a non-standard source
> port and voice data range, with dest. server port set to the standard
> 5060. The timeout on the Gigaset for connections is 180 sec., whilst
> the default UDP tracking timeout on my MikroTik router (RB951G) was also
> 180 sec. I couldn't achieve a stable connection until I increased the
> Mikrotik timeout to 240 sec. and, tempting fate, the SIP service now
> seems to work well.
You could have shortened the Gigaset time out.
> Long story short, I configured the Gigaset to use a non-standard source
> port and voice data range, with dest. server port set to the standard
> 5060. The timeout on the Gigaset for connections is 180 sec., whilst
> the default UDP tracking timeout on my MikroTik router (RB951G) was also
> 180 sec. I couldn't achieve a stable connection until I increased the
> Mikrotik timeout to 240 sec. and, tempting fate, the SIP service now
> seems to work well.
> I didn't need to enable the "SIP Helper" on the router.
can really only make a "best guess" about the traffic and which
packets need to go NOW and those that can sit in a queue.
--
Cheers
Dave.
DaverN
Mar 23, 2017, 4:49:34 PM3/23/17
to
On 23/03/2017 16:01, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:18:58 +0000, DaverN wrote:
>
>> Long story short, I configured the Gigaset to use a non-standard source
>> port and voice data range, with dest. server port set to the standard
>> 5060. The timeout on the Gigaset for connections is 180 sec., whilst
>> the default UDP tracking timeout on my MikroTik router (RB951G) was also
>> 180 sec. I couldn't achieve a stable connection until I increased the
>> Mikrotik timeout to 240 sec. and, tempting fate, the SIP service now
>> seems to work well.
>
> You could have shortened the Gigaset time out.
Yes, I could. However, I don't know whether other consumer routers
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:18:58 +0000, DaverN wrote:
>
>> Long story short, I configured the Gigaset to use a non-standard source
>> port and voice data range, with dest. server port set to the standard
>> 5060. The timeout on the Gigaset for connections is 180 sec., whilst
>> the default UDP tracking timeout on my MikroTik router (RB951G) was also
>> 180 sec. I couldn't achieve a stable connection until I increased the
>> Mikrotik timeout to 240 sec. and, tempting fate, the SIP service now
>> seems to work well.
>
> You could have shortened the Gigaset time out.
provide details of their default tracking timeouts which I think would
be essential information if adjusting the Gigaset timeout to take into
account NAT.
IIRC the AAISP Wiki recommends something like a 10 min timeout for the
Gigaset ATA.
--
DaverN
DaverN
Mar 24, 2017, 9:29:06 AM3/24/17
to
On 23/03/2017 20:50, DaverN wrote:
> On 23/03/2017 16:01, Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> You could have shortened the Gigaset time out.
>
> Yes, I could. However, I don't know whether other consumer routers
> provide details of their default tracking timeouts which I think would
> be essential information if adjusting the Gigaset timeout to take into
> account NAT.
Apologies for following-up myself but, for anyone who is interested in
> On 23/03/2017 16:01, Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> You could have shortened the Gigaset time out.
>
> Yes, I could. However, I don't know whether other consumer routers
> provide details of their default tracking timeouts which I think would
> be essential information if adjusting the Gigaset timeout to take into
> account NAT.
the detail, the relevant URL for the MikroTik manual is here:-
<https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP/Firewall/Connection_tracking>
Under the sub-section headed Connection Tracking Settings, I am
referring specifically to the udp-stream-timeout for which the default
is 3 mins.
> IIRC the AAISP Wiki recommends something like a 10 min timeout for the
> Gigaset ATA.
mins. as shown here:-
<http://support.aa.net.uk/VoIP_Phones_-_Gigaset_N300>
--
DaverN
Andrew Gabriel
Mar 25, 2017, 4:44:30 AM3/25/17
to
In article <ejg9skF...@mid.individual.net>,
However, my first SPA-3000 (12-13 years old) just died, and I
found they no longer have any equivalent product, the SPA-3102
having been EOLed.
> However, none of it seems to do IPv6.
Indeed.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:12:27 +0000, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/17 17:40, Andrew Benham wrote:
>>> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP
>>> Knowledge Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single
>>> IPv4 address but many IPv6 addresses.
>>>
>>> I reckon I simply need an ATA which can do IPv6. But are there any
>>> such devices ? Nothing suitable is shown on
>>> http://support.aa.net.uk/Category:VoIP_Phones
>>>
>>>
>> I use a GrandStream HT812, which does IPv6 perfectly. Buy from Amazon.
>> There are minimal setup instructions, but it's fairly self-explicit.
>>
>> I used to use a Cisco SPA-112 <spit>, but had no end of trouble with it.
>> Wouldn't touch one again. I guess it was faulty. Can't remember whether
>> id did IPv6.
>
> I have a load of Sipura/Linksys/Cisco SPA kit, and it has all worked
> really well.
Same here.
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:12:27 +0000, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/17 17:40, Andrew Benham wrote:
>>> So I've read the dire warnings about NAT with SIP on the AAISP
>>> Knowledge Base and Wiki. I'm a Home::1 customer, so I have a single
>>> IPv4 address but many IPv6 addresses.
>>>
>>> I reckon I simply need an ATA which can do IPv6. But are there any
>>> such devices ? Nothing suitable is shown on
>>> http://support.aa.net.uk/Category:VoIP_Phones
>>>
>>>
>> I use a GrandStream HT812, which does IPv6 perfectly. Buy from Amazon.
>> There are minimal setup instructions, but it's fairly self-explicit.
>>
>> I used to use a Cisco SPA-112 <spit>, but had no end of trouble with it.
>> Wouldn't touch one again. I guess it was faulty. Can't remember whether
>> id did IPv6.
>
> I have a load of Sipura/Linksys/Cisco SPA kit, and it has all worked
> really well.
However, my first SPA-3000 (12-13 years old) just died, and I
found they no longer have any equivalent product, the SPA-3102
having been EOLed.
> However, none of it seems to do IPv6.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Mark Dixon
Mar 25, 2017, 12:27:25 PM3/25/17
to
Mark
0 new messages