Finally I had time to test your suggestions today with no luck. Simon, I agree that my setup is quite simple, therefore I'm wondering about the problems with proxying between two interfaces. Removing all extra settings first, as well as defining a loopback interface in "Bind=" parameter in a second test as David had suggested had no positive effect. Instead now there is no RTP traffic in both directions. A check with iptraf shows me that on both interfaces UDP packets are coming in but no packet is leaving other side. in debug level 6 now I see repeating messages when a connection between endpoints is established successful. ... yasocket.cxx(842) ProxyRTP(0) waiting... yasocket.cxx(842) ProxyH(2) waiting... yasocket.cxx(842) ProxyH(4) waiting... yasocket.cxx(842) ProxyH(3) waiting... yasocket.cxx(842) ProxyH(1) waiting... yasocket.cxx(842) ProxyH(0) waiting... ... Are there any known side effects on os or kernel level that can interfere with proxying, such as loaded security frameworks like apparmor or selinux? Has anti-spoofing controlled by rp_filter impacts on proxy mode? Deactivating rp_filter had no effect so far. When I close the connection between my endpoints I can see that needed sockets were established successful. But monitoring the loopback interface shows no traffic passing by. ... yasocket.cxx(577) RTP Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60100<=>127.0.0.1:53004<=>175.193.73.14:60334 yasocket.cxx(577) RTCP Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60101<=>127.0.0.1:53005<=>175.193.73.14:60335 yasocket.cxx(577) RTP Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60096<=>127.0.0.1:53000<=>175.193.73.14:60330 yasocket.cxx(577) RTCP Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60097<=>127.0.0.1:53001<=>175.193.73.14:60331 yasocket.cxx(577) RTP Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60098<=>127.0.0.1:53002<=>175.193.73.14:60332 yasocket.cxx(577) RTCP Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60099<=>127.0.0.1:53003<=>175.193.73.14:60333 yasocket.cxx(577) H245d Delete socket 171.42.1.67:60394 yasocket.cxx(577) H245s Delete socket 175.193.73.14:61363 David Dahlberg wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 08:13 +1000 schrieb Simon Horne: > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Vogt [mailto:dekkart@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:39 PM >> To: GNU Gatekeeper Users >> Subject: dual-homed proxy but only unidirectional >> RTP streams > > I had nearly the same problem only yesterday, so maybe I may share some > insight. > > Depending on the configuration I got different "Q931d Could not > open/connect socket at a.b.c.d:e" errors. I had checked but there were no Q931d on my system. Log seems OK beside of mentioned "waiting" messages. > Strangely yesterday with these lines it did not work for me (error on > Q931 channel setup), without it did not work either (RTP channel > negotiation failed). Today it works with or without those settings ... > Oh how I love those non-reproducible problems :-( as much as I do... :) > What worked even yesterday was setting the "Bind" address to the > Loopback address, while not setting the "Home" parameter. Which leads to > the question what differences there are between "Home", "Bind" and > "Network Interfaces" and how they interact. > > My understanding is as follows: > Home: Listen and accept calls from there. > Bind: Use this as source address for outgoing connections. I agree >> [Proxy] >> ;;InternalNetwork=171.42.0.0/16 > > I used "InternalNetwork" and "ProxyAlways". "InternalNetwork" not set "ProxyAlways" on ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev _______________________________________________________ Posting: mailto:Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=openh323gk-users Unsubscribe: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323gk-users Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/