UKVoIPTalk.com

I have been looking into peer to peer - where one "dials" the IP
rather than going through a provider. I got the idea from the recent
thread on BT Home Hubs.

I decided to do a bit of local testing myself as I have a Zyxel ATA
with two lines. So I set the phone book up with two entries each
pointing to the other line via the external address (I have fixed IPs)
- You have to use the phone book as you can't "dial" an IP.

If I call either phone from the other using their "land line numbers",
ie it goes to the provider and back again, the other phone rings. But
if I use the speed dial IP entry I just get silence. If I use the
speed dial entry to call the one I am calling from I get engaged as
expected. So "something" is happening, just not what I expected. I set
the phone book entry to be the number provided by the provider for
that line and the ATA's external IP address.

I must be missing something obvious. I someone has a setup that works
by "dialing" IP numbers please PM me and I will give you a number to
try.

TIA
--
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

Bad form to reply to one's own post but....

With some help from another reader we established that it *can* work
provided that both ends can solve going through NAT. My Zyxel is OK as
it can embed the external IP address in the VOIP packet - but the
other end was not. So my end was trying to reply to his *internal*
address as he normally went through a STUN server. So we ended up with
a one way conversation.

Still no idea why my Line 1 can't call Line 2 though. Snooping the
packets it appears that they are just throwing invites at each other.
Anyone know where I can find the gory details of VOIP packets?

--
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

Dave Saville wrote:[color=blue]
> Anyone know where I can find the gory details of VOIP packets?
>[/color]

RFC3261 will go into just about as much gory detail as you could ask for.

This website might have some easier to digest information on it though:

[url]http://www.tech-invite.com/[/url]

cheers,
Paul.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:54:21 UTC, Paul Hayes
<nomailforme@polog40.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dave Saville wrote:[color=green]
> > Anyone know where I can find the gory details of VOIP packets?
> >[/color]
>
> RFC3261 will go into just about as much gory detail as you could ask for.
>
> This website might have some easier to digest information on it though:
>
> [url]http://www.tech-invite.com/[/url][/color]

Excellent - Just what I was looking for. Thanks.

--
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

Dave Saville wrote:[color=blue]
> Bad form to reply to one's own post but....
>
> With some help from another reader we established that it *can* work
> provided that both ends can solve going through NAT. My Zyxel is OK as
> it can embed the external IP address in the VOIP packet - but the
> other end was not. So my end was trying to reply to his *internal*
> address as he normally went through a STUN server. So we ended up with
> a one way conversation.
>
> Still no idea why my Line 1 can't call Line 2 though. Snooping the
> packets it appears that they are just throwing invites at each other.
> Anyone know where I can find the gory details of VOIP packets?
>[/color]
You don't say which Zyxel ATA but on the 2002's I have here, you just
dial #### and it dials the phone on the other port.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:32:38 UTC, Desk Rabbit <nospam@example.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dave Saville wrote:[color=green]
> > Bad form to reply to one's own post but....
> >
> > With some help from another reader we established that it *can* work
> > provided that both ends can solve going through NAT. My Zyxel is OK as
> > it can embed the external IP address in the VOIP packet - but the
> > other end was not. So my end was trying to reply to his *internal*
> > address as he normally went through a STUN server. So we ended up with
> > a one way conversation.
> >
> > Still no idea why my Line 1 can't call Line 2 though. Snooping the
> > packets it appears that they are just throwing invites at each other.
> > Anyone know where I can find the gory details of VOIP packets?
> >[/color]
> You don't say which Zyxel ATA but on the 2002's I have here, you just
> dial #### and it dials the phone on the other port.[/color]

Yes I know (it is a 2002) but I was trying to test out "dialing by IP"
and did not know anyone to try it with.

--
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:32:38 UTC, Desk Rabbit <nospam@example.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> You don't say which Zyxel ATA but on the 2002's I have here, you just
> dial #### and it dials the phone on the other port.[/color]

Ops - hit the send key too quickly :-)

The other thing the 2002 book does not say is if it is OK to use the
*same* port numbers for both lines. It would appear from testing that
one can - the firmware obviously selecting by the SIP number as to
which phone to route it to.

Wich the phone book were longer though.

Thanks for trying to help.

--
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

Dave,
you CAN dial IP numbers directly, start and end with #. use * for .
e.g.
#123*45*67*89#
Regards,
Martin

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:34:33 UTC, "Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dave,
> you CAN dial IP numbers directly, start and end with #. use * for .
> e.g.
> #123*45*67*89#[/color]

Martin

But what about the number? is it 123456#81*81*81*81# ? And does this
work on any ATA?

--
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

"Dave Saville" <dave@nospam.deezee.org> wrote in message
news:fV45K0OBJxbE-pn2-xGd0YmmgYGXu@localhost...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:34:33 UTC, "Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Dave,
>> you CAN dial IP numbers directly, start and end with #. use * for .
>> e.g.
>> #123*45*67*89#[/color]
>
> Martin
>
> But what about the number? is it 123456#81*81*81*81# ? And does this
> work on any ATA?
>[/color]


You've missed the point, there isn't a number, it's peer to peer.
(And FWIW I haven't got it to work either)
--
Graham

%Profound_observation%