GXW4104 over VPN

Discussion in '3CX Phone System - General' started by tobiastromm, Jan 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tobiastromm

    tobiastromm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi.

    I am using a GrandStream GXW4104 to dial out over PSTN line.

    My GXW4104 is over a Cliente side of a PPTP Site-to-Site VPN between two houses.

    Everything is working fine, but a little thing is boring me.

    My network is like that:

    3CX Server is also PPTP Server with Local Network (10.0.0.1/24) and PPTP Bridge (10.1.1.1/24)
    PPTP Client (10.1.1.2/24 - 192.168.2.1/24)

    Networks 10.0.0.0/24 and 192.168.2.0/24 can ping each side.

    The small problem is that to GXW4104 can dial out I need to register it with SIP Server 10.1.1.1 instead of the correct Server IP 10.0.0.1 (under Accounts -> General Settings).

    I have two Grandstream 486 in PPPT Clieent side connected to 3CX Server and working OK with Sip Server 10.0.0.1.

    Here is the error when set the Sip Server to 10.0.0.1:

    22:19:24.924 [CM503020]: Normal call termination. Reason: No answer
    22:19:24.924 [CM503016]: Call(63): Attempt to reach <sip:210314@10.0.0.1> failed. Reason: No Answer
    22:19:24.924 [CM503003]: Call(63): Call to sip:10314@192.168.2.2:5060 has failed; Cause: 408 Request Timeout; internal
    22:18:53.533 Currently active calls - 1: [63]
    22:18:52.815 [CM503025]: Call(63): Calling PSTNline:10314@(Ln.10001@EVN - 34445652)@[Dev:sip:10001@192.168.2.2:5060;transport=udp]
    22:18:52.815 [MS210002] C:63.2:Offer provided. Connection(transcoding mode): 10.1.1.1:7296(7297)
    22:18:52.768 [CM503004]: Call(63): Route 1: PSTNline:10314@(Ln.10001@EVN - 34445652)@[Dev:sip:10001@192.168.2.2:5060;transport=udp]
    22:18:52.768 [CM503010]: Making route(s) to <sip:210314@10.0.0.1>

    Here is the call ok when set the Sip Server to 10.1.1.1:

    22:21:30.223 [CM503008]: Call(64): Call is terminated
    22:21:16.332 Session 14450 of leg C:64.1 is confirmed
    22:21:16.301 [CM503007]: Call(64): Device joined: sip:10001@192.168.2.2:5060;transport=udp
    22:21:16.301 [CM503007]: Call(64): Device joined: sip:904@10.0.0.11:20404
    22:21:16.301 [MS210003] C:64.1:Answer provided. Connection(transcoding mode[unsecure]):10.0.0.1:7298(7299)
    22:21:16.301 [MS210001] C:64.2:Answer received. RTP connection[unsecure]: 192.168.2.2:5004(5005)
    22:21:16.301 Remote SDP is set for legC:64.2
    22:21:15.457 [CM505002]: Gateway:[EVN - 34445652] Device info: Device Not Identified: User Agent not matched; Capabilities:[reinvite, replaces, able-no-sdp, recvonly] UserAgent: [Grandstream GXW4104 (HW 2.0, Ch:8) 1.4.1.6] PBX contact: [sip:10001@10.1.1.1:5060]
    22:21:15.457 [CM503002]: Call(64): Alerting sip:10001@192.168.2.2:5060;transport=udp
    22:21:12.941 [CM503025]: Call(64): Calling PSTNline:10314@(Ln.10001@EVN - 34445652)@[Dev:sip:10001@192.168.2.2:5060;transport=udp]
    22:21:12.941 [MS210002] C:64.2:Offer provided. Connection(transcoding mode): 10.1.1.1:7300(7301)
    22:21:12.894 [CM503004]: Call(64): Route 1: PSTNline:10314@(Ln.10001@EVN - 34445652)@[Dev:sip:10001@192.168.2.2:5060;transport=udp]
    22:21:12.894 [CM503010]: Making route(s) to <sip:210314@10.0.0.1>

    Can someone help?

    Thanks.
     
  2. leejor

    leejor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,355
    Likes Received:
    223
    Could it have something to do with the subnet mask settings in the devices? You are dealing with two different private IP settings.
     
  3. tobiastromm

    tobiastromm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don´t know.

    But HT 486 works OK to receive and make calls with SIP SERVERT set to 10.0.01.

    By setting GWX4104 SIP SERVER to 10.0.0.1 I can receice calls, but I can´t dial out.

    Maybe I need some way to inform 3CX the interface to use on the server.
     
  4. leejor

    leejor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,355
    Likes Received:
    223
    If you are using VPN, then in theory, it should all be one network. yet, I'm seeing IPs such as 10.0.0.1 , 10.1.1.1 and 192.168.2.2. So...there is going to be a gateway set along with a DNS server (may be the same thing). Why not just have everything on the same network like 10.1.1.XX, or even 10.1.XX.XX ? It just sounds as if, even given the correct destination IP, there is something preventing communication to the destination, a networking issue.
     
  5. tobiastromm

    tobiastromm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    To a Site-to-Site VPN works with RRAS is needed a diferent network between RRAS and the Cliente Router (10.1.1.1 and 10.1.1.2).

    There is a strange fact.

    I can tracert everything from 10.x.x.x to 192.168.2.x network, but only GXW4104 give me two lost packets before complete.

    Example: Tracert to HT486

    C:\Users\tobias>tracert 192.168.2.3

    Rastreando a rota para 192.168.2.3 com no máximo 30 saltos

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms servidor.tromm.local [10.0.0.1]
    2 43 ms 44 ms 42 ms 10.1.1.2
    3 53 ms 52 ms 46 ms 192.168.2.3

    Rastreamento concluído.

    C:\Users\tobias>

    Tracert to GXW4104:

    C:\Users\tobias>tracert 192.168.2.2

    Rastreando a rota para 192.168.2.2 com no máximo 30 saltos

    1 1 ms 2 ms 1 ms servidor.tromm.local [10.0.0.1]
    2 49 ms 54 ms 65 ms 10.1.1.2
    3 * * * Esgotado o tempo limite do pedido.
    4 * * * Esgotado o tempo limite do pedido.
    5 38 ms 38 ms 38 ms 192.168.2.2

    Rastreamento concluído.

    C:\Users\tobias>

    I see the following error too when set SIP SERVER to 10.0.0.1:

    Call to 10314@(Ln.10001@EVN - 34445652) has failed. [ V4 0.0.0.0:0 UNKNOWN_TRANSPORT target domain=unspecified mFlowKey=0 ] replied: 408 Request Timeout; internal
     
  6. leejor

    leejor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,355
    Likes Received:
    223
    Why do you have a device set as 192.168.2.2, rather than using either 10.1.1.X or 10.0.0.X? Isn't that overcomplicating things?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.