Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pcesar2030]

Hi,

After changing my wi-fi router from a DI-524 to the DIR-655 I realized that my VoIP phone no longer stayed stable. From time to time, I noticed that my VoIP phone lost registration with my VoIP carrier.
After investigating, I noticed the following:

- My broadband access is ADSL and my ADSL modem is configured as bridge. My DIR-655 is opening the PPPoE session;
- When the carrier drop the PPPoE session and the DIR-655 renegotiate the WAN IP address, the internet connection over UDP port 5060 is keeping the older WAN IP address (shown below). So, of course, the VoIP phone will loose the SIP registering.

It seems to me that one of the following is happening:

- a bug on the DIR-655, provided that I had no problem with DI-524;
- the config on DIR-655 is not adequate for VoIP.

My DIR-655 is running firmware version 1.32NA (I had the same behavior for fw 1.21).
SIP ALG is disabled (I had the same problem with SIP ALG enabled). Also, the VoIP provider can handle the NAT Traversal because they use Session Border Controllers (in this case, is advisable to turn off the SIP ALG).

Does anyone have a similar situation ? Why the DIR-655 is not renewing the WAN IP address for UDP sessions ?

Take a look. The WAN IP address changed to 187.58.244.134, but the UDP on 5060 and TCP on 8080 kept the old WAN IP address.

Local NAT Internet Protocol State Dir Priority Time Out
192.168.0.110:5902 187.58.244.134:5902 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.105:5901 187.58.244.134:5901 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.100:5900 187.58.244.134:5900 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.101:80 187.58.244.134:8000 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.255:2525 187.58.244.134:2525 *.*.*.*:* UDP - - 128 0
192.168.0.1:80 187.58.244.134:8080 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
187.58.244.134 187.58.244.134 *.*.*.* ICMP - - 128 0
192.168.0.101:5060 189.26.56.233:5060 201.86.87.8:5060 UDP - Out 143 300
192.168.0.1:80 189.26.56.233:8080 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0


Thanks,

Paulo

[jason1722x]

I have Vonage and at one time had their v-portal (router) behind the dir 655 with DHCP disabled, along with ALG, QOS and tried many different configs but could not find a stable way. But with V Portal I have the option of putting it between the 655 and Surfboard.

I believe the 655 is not reliable so if there is another way of bypassing the 655, do it.

[Sammydad1]

Hi,

I have my Vonage box (a motorola unit) now on a LAN port, whereas before I had it between my cable modem and my DIR-655.  The vonage box has been very stable for me in eaither configuration.

I use DIR FW 1.21, and I have the vonage box on a reserved IP addy; if that makes any difference, I can't be sure.

I guess one thought is to whether you see this instability with your vonage box if you have the DSL modem in active (PPPoE) mode rather than bridge mode, and just let the DIR be the router.  When I had my Vonage box in between my modem and router, I set up a DMZ address for the router in the vonage box setups in case it was slowing anything down, which it didn't seem to be anyhow.


SD1

[pcesar2030]

I believe that it's better to use the ADSL modem configured as bridge and let the DIR act as router and dhcp server. In such scenario, we would be avoiding two stages of NAT.
That's my scenario. The DIR is receiving the public IP address directly in its WAN port and it's performing dhcp for my LAN. The VoIP set is connected to one of the LAN ports. I must remind you that for this very same scenario I never had problems using my older DI-524.

The big question remains: why the DIR is not renewing the WAN IP address for UDP 5060 (and for TCP 8080) when the PPPoE renegotiation occurs ?

[davevt31]

Did you power down the dsl modem prior to connecting the 655?

[pcesar2030]

Dave,

I didn't get it. Why should I do that ? Take a look at the logs. Most of internet connections did change for the new wan ip address (for instance, TCP ports 5900, 5901 and 5901 - UDP 2525).
It wouldn't be practical to power down and up the DSL modem every time the PPPoE is renegotiated.

rgds.,

Paulo

[davevt31]

Was just a suggestion - more familiar with cable modems than DSL.  With cable modems if you switch routers you need to power cycle the cable modem because of the new MAC address of the new router.

[pcesar2030]

Ok. I'm aware of that because I already had a cable access in the past.

rgds.,

Paulo

[Sammydad1]

Hi,

Just a thought, but is there maybe a setting in the 655's setups for some sort of timeout where it renegotiates the WAN IP or something of that ilk ?

Or perhaps a setting in the DSL modem to "auto-reset" if it loses connection  (perhaps a bad guess on my part as my cable modem doesn't require this).  A number of my clients do have DSL with routers and personally, I prefer to have the DSL modem handle the PPPoE stuff even if it creates a very small performance hit with thed possible double NAT situation.

My feeling is that routers handling the PPPoE is an "afterthought" of the technology, that should be handled by the DSL modems.  Others may differ in their opins...

SD1

[pcesar2030]

This issue was solved.

Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is a bug and I reported it to D-Link support. I consider this solution as a workaround only.

The solution consisted of configuring a Virtual Server for SIP (UDP port 5060). All trafic coming to UDP port 5060 was mapped to a Virtual Server which is my VoIP phone internal IP address (192.168.0.101).
For some reason, when the PPPoE is renegotiated, this Virtual Server config forces the DIR to renew the public (WAN) IP address for this internet session. Check below the two portions of logs:

- System logs showing the PPPoE renegotiation:

[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:59 2009 WAN interface speed measurement completed.  Upstream speed is 1156 kbps
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Estimating speed of WAN interface
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 PPP network up with IP Address 189.114.180.64
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 LCP sets local options: ACCM: 00000000, ACFC: 1, PFC: 0, MRU: 1492
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 LCP sets remote auth: C023
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 LCP sets remote options: ACCM: FFFFFFFF, ACFC: 1, PFC: 0, MRU: 1492
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Established INTERNET PPPoE connection, session id 11778
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Issuing request for offer for INTERNET PPPoE Session
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Offer of service [any] accepted for INTERNET PPPoE Session
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Discovering PPPoE servers for INTERNET PPPoE Session
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Trying to establish INTERNET PPPoE connection
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:02 2009 PPP network down
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:02 2009 INTERNET PPPoE session protocol fault.  Connection attempt failed.
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:02 2009 PPP network down

- Internet connections after the PPPoE renegotiation:

Local NAT Internet Protocol State Dir Priority Time Out
192.168.0.101:5060 189.114.180.64:5060 201.86.87.8:5060 UDP - Out 157 127 <= ok. UDP 5060 had WAN IP renewed
192.168.0.101:5060 189.114.180.64:5060 *.*.*.*:* UDP - - 128 0 <= this is due the new Virtual Server defined for UDP 5060
192.168.0.110:5902 189.114.180.64:5902 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.105:5901 189.114.180.64:5901 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.100:5900 189.114.180.64:5900 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.101:80 189.114.180.64:8000 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.255:2525 189.114.180.64:2525 *.*.*.*:* UDP - - 128 0
192.168.0.1:80 189.114.180.64:8080 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0 <= TCP 8080 is functional. Even being stuck at the old WAN IP (see below), the DIR created a new listening for TCP 8080 at the new WAN IP
189.114.180.64 189.114.180.64 *.*.*.* ICMP - - 128 0
192.168.0.1:80 200.146.5.185:8080 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0 <= TCP 8080 get stuck at the old WAN IP
200.146.5.185 200.146.5.185 *.*.*.* ICMP - - 128 0

[BAZZA]

I avoided this by configuring my DSL modem as a router then using a STATIC IP between the DSL modem and the DIR-655 router.  I let the DSL Modem handle the PPOE negotiating like my DSL provider wants me to (they'll support they're own recommended device). 

This means that there are two Net Address translations going on, -- one as it passes from ISP thru DSL modem, then another NAT done by the DIR-655.  This hasn't caused any problems for me.  In fact, I consider it more secure.

But my VOIP device doesn't get caught up in PPOE re-negotiations - it all happens at the DSL modem level.

[whozdemanj]

This issue was solved.

Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is a bug and I reported it to D-Link support. I consider this solution as a workaround only.

The solution consisted of configuring a Virtual Server for SIP (UDP port 5060). All trafic coming to UDP port 5060 was mapped to a Virtual Server which is my VoIP phone internal IP address (192.168.0.101).
For some reason, when the PPPoE is renegotiated, this Virtual Server config forces the DIR to renew the public (WAN) IP address for this internet session. Check below the two portions of logs:

- System logs showing the PPPoE renegotiation:

[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:59 2009 WAN interface speed measurement completed.  Upstream speed is 1156 kbps
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Estimating speed of WAN interface
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 PPP network up with IP Address 189.114.180.64
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 LCP sets local options: ACCM: 00000000, ACFC: 1, PFC: 0, MRU: 1492
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 LCP sets remote auth: C023
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 LCP sets remote options: ACCM: FFFFFFFF, ACFC: 1, PFC: 0, MRU: 1492
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Established INTERNET PPPoE connection, session id 11778
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Issuing request for offer for INTERNET PPPoE Session
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Offer of service [any] accepted for INTERNET PPPoE Session
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Discovering PPPoE servers for INTERNET PPPoE Session
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:32 2009 Trying to establish INTERNET PPPoE connection
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:02 2009 PPP network down
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:02 2009 INTERNET PPPoE session protocol fault.  Connection attempt failed.
[INFO] Sat Sep 12 20:12:02 2009 PPP network down

- Internet connections after the PPPoE renegotiation:

Local NAT Internet Protocol State Dir Priority Time Out
192.168.0.101:5060 189.114.180.64:5060 201.86.87.8:5060 UDP - Out 157 127 <= ok. UDP 5060 had WAN IP renewed
192.168.0.101:5060 189.114.180.64:5060 *.*.*.*:* UDP - - 128 0 <= this is due the new Virtual Server defined for UDP 5060
192.168.0.110:5902 189.114.180.64:5902 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.105:5901 189.114.180.64:5901 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.100:5900 189.114.180.64:5900 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.101:80 189.114.180.64:8000 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0
192.168.0.255:2525 189.114.180.64:2525 *.*.*.*:* UDP - - 128 0
192.168.0.1:80 189.114.180.64:8080 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0 <= TCP 8080 is functional. Even being stuck at the old WAN IP (see below), the DIR created a new listening for TCP 8080 at the new WAN IP
189.114.180.64 189.114.180.64 *.*.*.* ICMP - - 128 0
192.168.0.1:80 200.146.5.185:8080 *.*.*.*:* TCP NO - 128 0 <= TCP 8080 get stuck at the old WAN IP
200.146.5.185 200.146.5.185 *.*.*.* ICMP - - 128 0

Any other suggestions on this. I also have a DIR-655 and have similar problems. I've tried the DSL modem in Briged and Regular mode.,the SIP ALG config on and off, port forwarding, virtual server, and DMZ for my SIP phone. It will work for a time and then someone calls and they can hear me, but I can't hear them. Makes no sense. I have the most recent firmware, and never had this kind of problem with old linksys router. Honestly the DMZ must not be true DMZ or it would work. Anyone have any suggestions.

[3cxman]

We are seeing another issues with SIP phones connected to LAN ports on the DIR655 & 615.  They are not letting through the router incoming RTP messages.  Therefore if you use port forwarding to make sure the incoming SIP call is forwarded to the phone. There is NO voice transmission. The only way we can make it work is to put the phone in DMZ, which is not ideal.

Also, we are experiencing issue with re-registration to our SIP service provider. It will only register if it is a new IP address, once it looses the link for any reason, we can not register until the IP address is changed.

Our DIR655 routers hardware is rev A2 with F/W 1.21 but, as we know there is even more problems, if we upgrade the routers to 1.31 firmware build. I have emailed tech support 7 days ago with no reply, I tried calling  tech support, only to get someone that I can't understand a word of his English. In the end, I have just given up with them.
 
This is a big issue for us and this router at the present time just can't handle SIP and RTP incoming and outgoing traffic correctly. As there is no firmware fixes on the horizon, we are considering replacement of all our DIR655 & DIR615 routers.

[pcesar2030]

To figure out exactly what is happening, it's important to understand how your operator works with VoIP. In my case, I never had problems with one-way speech using VoIP.
To understand the way your operator deals with VoIP, it's necessary to get a packet capture using some tool like wireshark and a VoIP softphone. Of course, this is not simple and usual for most of the users.

In my case, I know exactly how my operator deals with VoIP. They use Session Border Controllers in order to avoid ANY configuration at customer premises in order to perform NAT traversal. But this can vary from one operator to another.