[VoiceOps] Issues with ISPs blocking SIP 5060 - 5061
ryandelgrosso at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 14:17:13 EST 2013
Ditto. We have gone down this path but a few things to be aware of we
1: When switching from UDP to TCP for sip you introduce a failure point
on the access side (tcp session). Devices that are rebooted etc will
begin a new TCP session and thus create a new registration. If you are
using a forking proxy this will create an additional registration
orphaning the previous. Depending on your network config rapid reboots
of CPE can have subscribers hitting a cap on concurrent registrations
where under UDP, after reboots they would have resumed the existing one
since there wasnt session state to deal with.
2: You can almost as effectively hide the sip traffic by using different
ports (this also prevents your endpoints from getting slammed regularly
On 11/21/2013 10:15 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
> I keep wanting to just deploy SIP/TLS and SRTP for this. You can't SIP
> ALG what you can't see.
> On Thu, 11/21/2013 12:55 PM, Matt Yaklin <myaklin at g4.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, J. Oquendo wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Matt Yaklin wrote:
> >> Will tunneling the sip/rtp packets be more common in the near
> >> for SIP phone providers?
> >> matt
> >> From the ITSP side (where we provide trunks). Tunnels would
> > be a nightmare, so they are a no-no. Now you're throwing
> > in too many variables (Aggressive, Main, set ups, different
> > equipment). Not to mention the overhead it would add to an
> > SBC.
> >> From the Managed PBX side of the equation... NO, but before
> > I ramble on, define tunneling. Tunneling as in VPN? If the
> Yes, a VPN tunnel that the CPE/SBC would have to handle
> and connect back to a centralized location that the SIP
> provider controls. Every SIP device behind the CPE/SBC would
> have to go through the CPE/SBC.
> The reason I mention it was recent SBC installs I did at
> customer sites had tunnel options but I am unsure at the moment
> if it was for site to site (full mesh setup) connectivity for
> security reasons or more for getting back to the provider
> for alternative reasons.
> But the more I think about it... it does add complexity
> that we would all like to avoid.
> > concern is security, TLS is suitable from the managed PBX
> > side as we can firewall trusted CIDRs on the firewall to
> > prevent recording/tampering.
> > If you meant VPN tunneling... Would only work on a softphone
> > because I have YET to see any VoIP device (phone, ATA, FXO,
> > FXS) have any parameters to set up a tunnel. So I am unsure
> > how one would truly call a VoIP Tunnel in a VPN sense, any
> > kind of true tunneling. (Tunnel in Tunnel maybe, been a
> > while since I dove into CCIP/IE like material.
> > --
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> > J. Oquendo
> > SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP, CPT, RWSP, GREM
> > "Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of
> > real peace" - Dalai Lama
> > 42B0 5A53 6505 6638 44BB 3943 2BF7 D83F 210A 95AF
> > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2BF7D83F210A95AF
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the VoiceOps