Freephoneline - service down?

Have a question or problem with your Fongo application? This forum is the place to get help from both staff and fellow community members.
Fongo recommends Fongo Home Phone for a fully supported Home Phone system for only $4.95/mo
carlyle705
Quiet One
Posts: 25
Joined: 09/21/2016

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by carlyle705 »

Liptonbrisk wrote:First, thank you very much for reporting back! I appreciate you taking the time to let me know. Thank you!
carlyle705 wrote: 1. FPL doesn't allow customized caller ID anymore when you make a outgoing call to non-Fongo-FPL numbers. You have to use standard 11-digit number format.
That might be related to the enforcement of this CRTC policy: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-484.htm.

Most ATAs I've dealt with can't customize outgoing number. Only the outbound CID name can be customized.
And you can't customize the number in FPL's online portal either.

I know I used to be able to spoof outbound CID using a smartphone SIP application, but I haven't tested after server migration (also, I have no need to spoof any of my FPL numbers, so this isn't something I pursued frequently).
3. When you call a non-Fongo number, only the caller ID will show up on the callee
Have you tested to a Rogers mobile number or to a Bell landline that subscribes to CID name display?
I haven't tested outbound CID name (except to Fongo Mobile) after server migration.

Hi Liptonbrisk,

I have a Rogers cell phone. When I use my FPL phone call my Rogers cell, only the FPL number shows up. When I call Fongo number or FPL number, the caller name shows up. A Fido cell does the same. I don't have a Bell mobile phone.
carlyle705
Quiet One
Posts: 25
Joined: 09/21/2016

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by carlyle705 »

Liptonbrisk wrote: That might be related to the enforcement of this CRTC policy: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-484.htm.
I agree. Before their server migration, my FreePBX was configured to send caller name and the extension number for outgoing calls and it always worked, and callee shows my extension number. After migration, it doesn't work anymore. I see the policy was released on 19 December 2018, I think Fongo is forced to comply with the policy now. :-)
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

carlyle705 wrote: When I use my FPL phone call my Rogers cell, only the FPL number shows up.
Okay, thank you. I believe that was the case before migration as well.

When I call Fongo number or FPL number, the caller name shows up.
Yes, Fongo Mobile has always shown CID name from FPL calls even before migration.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

carlyle705 wrote:
Liptonbrisk wrote: That might be related to the enforcement of this CRTC policy: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-484.htm.
I agree. Before their server migration, my FreePBX was configured to send caller name and the extension number for outgoing calls and it always worked, and callee shows my extension number. After migration, it doesn't work anymore. I see the policy was released on 19 December 2018, I think Fongo is forced to comply with the policy now. :-)
Yeah, they had a Dec. 2019 deadline listed under "What else is the CRTC doing about it?"
https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/phone/telemarketing/identit.htm

Thanks again. Number spoofing wouldn't have even crossed my mind until you mentioned it because it's uncommon for average users to even try with FPL.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
carlyle705
Quiet One
Posts: 25
Joined: 09/21/2016

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by carlyle705 »

Hi Liptonbrisk,

I'm a bit worried that one day they will totally shut down FPL service and force people to switch to their Fongo Home Phone. I have 4 FPL lines and I purchased the VoIP Keys long time ago (was $50 each). Do you know what is the possibility for them to shut down the service in the near future? I actually though about the Fongo Homephone, but I have to purchase their adapter if I sign up, this is what I don't like.
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

carlyle705 wrote:
I'm a bit worried that one day they will totally shut down FPL service and force people to switch to their Fongo Home Phone.
Based on what evidence? They are still accepting VoIP unlock key orders. Based on CRTC rules, providers can't stop anyone from porting out. So while it may be possible for FPL to shutdown, Fibernetics can't force you to switch to Fongo Home Phone without you agreeing to it. If I were running a CLEC, having customers consider porting out completely would make me pause.
Do you know what is the possibility for them to shut down the service in the near future?
No. I don't work for Fibernetics. I am not associated with them in any manner. I just help out on the forums when I can.

If you're asking for my personal opinion, my response here is still the same: http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19740#p77004.
I think it would make very little business sense to suddenly have thousands of customers filing CCTS complaints, which would in turn, cost Fibernetics money.
And then there are potential legal concerns. I have no personal insight into whatever Fibernetics plans to do. But I do know that I, as a customer, would be upset, and I wouldn't just sit around and do nothing. While I can't speak for others, I don't feel Fongo Home Phone is an obvious replacement for people that are not interested in plug-and-play devices (such as magicjack, for example, which I can't stand). For people
that do require a lot of technical assistance and don't want to fiddle, Fongo Home Phone makes more sense than Freephoneline. I feel there's two different types of customers being targetted by each separate service.
I actually though about the Fongo Homephone, but I have to purchase their adapter if I sign up, this is what I don't like.
I refuse to use a device that I can't configure myself. That's all I'm going to say on this topic on these forums out of respect for the company. And I'm just speaking for myself.
I use Freephoneline. I think it's great, given the one time fee. When people beg . . . I mean ask me to setup a Canadian VoIP service for them,
I almost always setup FPL for them. I think FPL is a great Canadian service. I honestly feel FPL is good value.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
carlyle705
Quiet One
Posts: 25
Joined: 09/21/2016

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by carlyle705 »

Liptonbrisk wrote: I refuse to use a device that I can't configure myself. That's all I'm going to say on this topic on these forums out of respect for the company. And I'm just speaking for myself.
I use Freephoneline. I think it's great, given the one time fee. When people beg . . . I mean ask me to setup a Canadian VoIP service for them,
I almost always setup FPL for them. I think FPL is a great Canadian service. I honestly feel FPL is good value.
Same here, lots of friends ask me to do the same thing, but I'm afraid to recommend FPL because I don't know when they will discontinue the service. I recommend people to use voip.ms, a feature rich VoIP provider, you have freedom to configure your own settings.
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

carlyle705 wrote: Same here, lots of friends ask me to do the same thing, but I'm afraid to recommend FPL because I don't know when they will discontinue the service.
One might as well have the same speculation with any other VoIP provider then. I have no clue when VoIP.ms, for example, will discontinue its service. There's no evidence that VoIP.ms will shut down. There's no evidence that Freephoneline will shut down either.

But VoIP.ms isn't a CLEC. I would have greater concern about what happens to my VoIP.ms service, and in particular, my number instead: https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32649 ... horization.

Again, VoIP.ms isn't a CLEC. They don't know what happened to this customer's number when it was ported out without that VoIP.ms customer's express permission:
"Please notice that since we're not a CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier) we don't have a way to know if a number is being ported out from our network to another provider unless the gaining provider let us know about this, which is the case we're talking. The gaining carrier did not inform us about this so we had no way to know it. Due to this situation we were not informed. The other provider contacted the CLEC and since the information provided by the person who initiated the port was correct, the port was authorized by the CLEC. Since the port was done a long time ago is not possible to recover it."
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32649987-

Fibernetics, which is the parent company of Freephoneline, is a CLEC. I feel safer knowing that my paid numbers are with Freephoneline, personally.

Regardless, in the event that Freephoneline were to suddenly shut down you would still be able to port out:

http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16964
"This isn't something you have to worry about. Hypothetically speaking though, if something were to happen, arrangements would be made for users to be able port their numbers out, or stay with whichever company were to take over operations of FPL [or Fongo]. The bottom line is, you would not simply lose your number."--Fongo_Jeff

Freephoneline is owned by Fibernetics, which is the largest privately held CLEC in Canada. It owns Nucleus Information Service, Worldline.ca, 1011295.com, 295.ca, Vonix, NEWT, etc.
Fibernetics owns FPL's DIDs/phone numbers. If FPL doesn't pay its bills, Fibernetics still has FPL's phone numbers. If Fibernetics doesn't pay its bills, Fibernetics still has FPL's phone numbers/DIDs until another company takes over. And FPL's customers will be able to port out before then or choose to stay with the company that takes over. Moreover, FPL, Fongo, and Fibernetics are registered with CCTS: https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/complaints/service-providers. If there's an issue, you can file a complaint with CCTS, and CCTS will act as an intermediary to help negotiate a resolution for you.

You might as well worry about what happens when any VoIP provider shuts down instead; I can speculate that any one of them will close. I already know what almost happened to Nettalk. Iristel, another CLEC, owned Nettalk's customers numbers. Iristel claimed Nettalk owed Iristel money. Suddenly Nettalk customers weren't able to use their numbers and were afraid of losing control of them. That situation can't happen with Freephoneline because the parent company, Fibernetics, owns the numbers.

Did you know that VoIP.ms uses Fibernetics as one of its carriers?
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/question ... #p25468891
“FreePhoneLine and VoIP.ms provide very similar services. The pricing structure is different, and VoIP.ms has more complex inbound call routing options, but the actual VoIP is the same. VoIP.ms even uses Fibernetics (FreePhoneLine's parent company) as one of their carriers, so some of the service is literally identical.”
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
aegyssus
Just Passing Thru
Posts: 24
Joined: 06/16/2009
SIP Device Name: Linksys ATA, Nortel 1535
ISP Name: Bell
Location: Montreal

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by aegyssus »

Hi,
I have the same problem in asterisk (no gui). I changed the caller id from
callerid = "John Smith" <5141231234>
to
callerid = 15141231234
where 15141231234 is my registered num with FPL, but still getting 484 code.
Any suggestion?
Many thanks!

Note:
Everything (ie both incoming/outgoing) works fine from softphones (such as Zoiper).
fizikz
Quiet One
Posts: 47
Joined: 08/23/2009

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by fizikz »

@carlyle705 Thanks for reporting the problem and solutions. Seems there were a few issues with the recent migration. My account got wrongly deleted for inactivity (everything is good/restored now): http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 44&p=77112

@Liptonbrisk Thanks for the excellent bookmark-worthy post on ATA and router configurations for VOIP: http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19740#p77001
To avoid derailing this thread, and because it doesn't involve Fongo, I made a post on the dd-wrt forum asking about how to make the suggested settings changes in the dd-wrt firmware: https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=322974
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

fizikz wrote: @Liptonbrisk Thanks for the excellent bookmark-worthy post on ATA and router configurations for VOIP: http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19740#p77001
To avoid derailing this thread, and because it doesn't involve Fongo, I made a post on the dd-wrt forum asking about how to make the suggested settings changes in the dd-wrt firmware: https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=322974
With respect to adjusting the Assured UDP Timeout, visit https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1032124.
In that post the user notes that "The "Unreplied UDP Timeout" value as found in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout equals 65 which really screws with lots of VoIP devices out there."
I agree with that observation (the 65 value being too high for some SIP services).

I'm not aware of a method to adjust the Unreplied UDP timeout setting in dd-wrt. If you come accross a method, please let me know so that I can pass that information along to others when the need arises.

It's fine to increase the failed retry timer (Reg Retry Intvl in SPA/PAP ATAs or RegisterRetryInterval in Obihai devices) without any problem, with the understanding that the ATA (or IP Phone) will take longer to attempt registration again after a failed attempt. Using Freephoneline (VoIP unlock key), there is an issue with lowering the failed retry timer below 120 seconds due to potential temporary server IP bans for too many registration attempts within a certain period. But there is no issue with increasing the failed retry timer in order to satisfy having the Assured UDP timeout being less than the failed retry timer. No VoIP provider should care whether you raise the failed retry timer.

With respect to your post, setting Assured UDP timeout (Administration > Management > IP Filter Settings > UDP Timeout), 10s is far too low and can cause problems. I like to keep Assured UDP timeouts above 100 if possible.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
fizikz
Quiet One
Posts: 47
Joined: 08/23/2009

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by fizikz »

I'm not sure of the accuracy of that post to which you referred on the ddwrt forum. It is old, made by a poster with only 4 posts, and has no follow up comments.

In recent ddwrt builds I can confirm that there are two UDP timeout values:
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout with default 120 (corresponds to UDP Timeout at Administration > Management > IP Filter Settings >UDP Timeout )
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream with default 180

In a recent post above http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19740#p77002 you mentioned regarding a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite:
Liptonbrisk wrote:With respect to UDP timeouts (point D above), for your router the commands are

set system conntrack timeout udp stream 117
set system conntrack timeout udp other 17

stream means assured UDP timeout
other is the same as unreplied UDP timeout
I'm not sure, but it would be plausible for ddwrt to use the same terminology and not the total opposite. i.e. do the values mean
ip_conntrack_udp_timeout = Unreplied UDP Timeout ???
ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream = Assured UDP Timeout ???

Would you know a way for me to determine which is which?
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

fizikz wrote:I'm not sure of the accuracy of that post to which you referred on the ddwrt forum. It is old, made by a poster with only 4 posts, and has no follow up comments.
https://forums.redflagdeals.com/network ... #p19625649
Pianoguy wrote:please enter your DD-WRT and navigate to Administration >> Commands. In Command Shell, paste the following, and then click Run Commands. Let me know the result.

cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp*
monotious wrote:I get

65
120
65 is the unreplied UDP timeout and corresponds with
"The "Unreplied UDP Timeout" value as found in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout equals 65 which really screws with lots of VoIP devices out there" from https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1032124

I'm only uncertain about the "can only tune" claim below:

120 corresponds with
"In ddwrt you can only tune the "Assured UDP Timeout", it is found under "Administration > Management > IP Filter Settings > UDP Timeout (in seconds)" and defaults to 120"
from https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1032124

https://forums.redflagdeals.com/network ... #p19627335
Pianoguy wrote:On the Advanced Settings tab, please set Keep-alive Interval to 75. (This must be greater than 65 and less than 120, which you obtained in the last step 4)
Note that you can't set the Keep-alive interval to 75 with Freephoneline and expect the the service to work properly. The recommended value is 20 for Freephoneline.

Eventually issues are resolved for monotious.

Pianoguy concludes,

"The other problem was timeouts. When you register to VoIP.ms, your router "remembers" this connection for (as we discovered earlier) 120 seconds. That is why when you first plugged your cable in, you were able to receive calls for about two minutes. We set up keep-alive every 75 seconds so that the connection would remain active permanently. Satisfying the following equation will make things work properly:

UDP Unreplied Timeout (65) < Keep-alive Interval (75) < UDP Assured Timeout (120) < SIP Registration Failure Retry Wait Time (180)"
https://forums.redflagdeals.com/network ... #p19633015


Again, note that you can't set the Keep-alive interval to 75 with Freephoneline and expect the the service to work properly. The recommended value is 20 for Freephoneline.
https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en- ... redentials
"Keep Alive Interval: 20 seconds"

So the UDP unreplied timeout for Freephoneline should be less than 20.

fizikz wrote:
In recent ddwrt builds I can confirm that there are two UDP timeout values:
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout with default 120 (corresponds to UDP Timeout at Administration > Management > IP Filter Settings >UDP Timeout )
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream with default 180
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout is Unreplied
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream is Assured


I've always been told you can't set Unreplied UDP timeout via DD-WRT's GUI (unless something has changed in newer firmwares).

Actually, I just found this:
https://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?t ... ost-274528
Aleka wrote: A message from the future for desperate ddwrt users, struggling with the same issue.

ddwrt GUI lacks the "Unreplied UDP Timeout" field, but you can still set it directly, e.g.

# ddwrt default is 65
echo 30 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout

(btw "Assured UDP Timeout" is stored in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream)

To persist changes after reboot, you need to add your command to crontab or "startup scripts".
In my case I had to shove the damn assignment into crontab, because either the startup command fails sometimes or the value gets reset eventually
:mad:.

TL;DDWRT
Ensure your router's "/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout" value is always less than keep-alive and re-register intervals on your phones/ATAs
So, it seems it is possible to change Unreplied UDP timeouts (edit:) using dd-wrt (not via GUI), but the process sounds a little annoying.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
fizikz
Quiet One
Posts: 47
Joined: 08/23/2009

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by fizikz »

As I mentioned, and confirmed myself, UDP Timeout in the ddwrt gui corresponds to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout, and the default is 120, on the latest and last Kong build r40270M.

Setting UDP Timeout in the gui to 10 results in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout having the value 10, which is less than the keep-alive and re-register intervals on the ATA.

I have found no way to change /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream through the gui.

I would suggest not relying on that lone ddwrt post https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1032124 as you can clearly see it is contradicted by https://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?t ... ost-274528 as well as your post http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19740#p77002

Is there a test to definitively establish the mapping between (Unreplied UDP Timeout, Assured UDP Timeout) and (ip_conntrack_udp_timeout, ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream)?
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

fizikz wrote:As I mentioned, and confirmed myself, UDP Timeout in the ddwrt gui corresponds to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout, and the default is 120, on the latest and last Kong build r40270M.

Setting UDP Timeout in the gui to 10 results in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout having the value 10, which is less than the keep-alive and re-register intervals on the ATA.

I have found no way to change /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream through the gui.

I find it unlikely that DD-WRT firmware intends the unreplied UDP timeout default to be 120.

Uqibitui uses 30
Asuswrt-Merlin uses 30
Mikrotik is 10
Tomato is 30
DD-WRT is/was 65.

What stands to reason here? That DD-WRT's unreplied UDP default is intended to be 120? Why the huge increase?

I would suggest not relying on that lone ddwrt post https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1032124 as you can clearly see it is contradicted by https://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?t ... ost-274528 as well as your post http://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19740#p77002
The only thing being contradicted is the inability to change Unreplied UDP timeout via GUI (and I wasn't sure it could be changed at all even via command line).
Both https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1032124 ("In ddwrt you can only tune the Assured UDP Timeout”) and https://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?t ... ost-274528 ("ddwrt GUI lacks the Unreplied UDP Timeout") claim that it's impossible to change Unreplied UDP timeout via the GUI.

What they're saying about the DD-WRT GUI contradicts what you're saying--unless the Kong version you're using is completely different.

They're saying they can adjust Assured via DD-WRT GUI. You're saying you can only adjust Unreplied via GUI in Kong.



This is one of the few DD-WRT emulators I can find online: https://router-firmware-test.gamma.nu/D ... ement.html
It lists UDP Timeout (in seconds) as 120
That's Assured, according to the threads I’m referencing. It's not Unreplied.
The default for unreplied is 65 in DD-WRT unless something has changed in newer/different firmwares.

It's clear that the defaults are 65 for unreplied and 120 for assured at the time these posts were written:

https://forums.redflagdeals.com/network ... #p19625649
and at
https://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?t ... ost-274528



Is there a test to definitively establish the mapping between (Unreplied UDP Timeout, Assured UDP Timeout) and (ip_conntrack_udp_timeout, ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream)?
I'm not using DD-WRT and am unable to test.
Stream, in this context, means tracking for packets in both directions. A request is sent from the source ip and source port. It expects a reply with information from the destination IP and destination port. NAT firewalls need a timeout for when to remove state tracking tables or stale associations. Anyway, both directions means assured. One direction means unreplied. That's why the assured default is longer than unreplied.

proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream is supposed to be assured. It always has been. If it's not, it's a bug.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
fizikz
Quiet One
Posts: 47
Joined: 08/23/2009

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by fizikz »

Liptonbrisk wrote:/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream is supposed to be assured. It always has been. If it's not, it's a bug.
If you're sure of this, it resolves the matter and would mean

Code: Select all

Unreplied UDP Timeout (default 120, editable in GUI): /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout 
Assured UDP Timeout (default 180, not in GUI): /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream 
How could we confirm or reject this empirically?
Liptonbrisk wrote:You're saying you can only adjust Unreplied via GUI in Kong.
No, I never asserted that what I changed is Unreplied -- that's what I'm asking confirmation for. What I said is that I can change UDP Timeout in the GUI and that change is reflected in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout .

I just dug up another router with BrainSlayer's build of ddwrt (r41418 from 2019 as opposed to old posts from 2016) and I can confirm the same defaults and behavior as on Kong: UDP Timeout in GUI defaults to 120, and changing it modifies /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout . /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream is 180 .
Liptonbrisk wrote: This is one of the few DD-WRT emulators I can find online: https://router-firmware-test.gamma.nu/D ... ement.html
It lists UDP Timeout (in seconds) as 120
That's Assured. It's not Unreplied.
How do you know this? Can it be verified?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, this is about as clear and verifiable as I can make it:

Image
Image
User avatar
Liptonbrisk
Technical Support
Posts: 2770
Joined: 04/26/2010
SIP Device Name: Obihai 202/2182, Groundwire
Firmware Version: various
ISP Name: FTTH
Computer OS: Windows 64 bit
Router: Asuswrt-Merlin & others

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by Liptonbrisk »

fizikz wrote:
Liptonbrisk wrote:/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream is supposed to be assured. It always has been. If it's not, it's a bug.
If you're sure of this
I am.

Tomato, DD-WRT, Asuswrt-Merlin, Ubiquiti . . . all Linux based router firmwares that I'm aware of use ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream for Assured.
They always have. That's about as certain as I can get.

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r29366256-
Mango wrote:Tomato routers have two UDP timeouts. Your file location is correct for the first one, and this is known as the unreplied timeout in the GUI. The other file is ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream and is known as the assured timeout in the GUI. The assured timeout is used after the router has received a reply.
Mango works in the industry.


https://www.frozentux.net/ipsysctl-tuto ... rence.html

"The ip_ct_udp_timeout variable specifies the timeout for initial UDP packets in a connection. When a UDP connection is initialized, the UDP packet enters an NEW and then ESTABLISHED state once it has seen return traffic to the original UDP packet. However, it maintains the same timeout until it has seen several packets go back and forth and becomes assured, at which point it is instead considered a stream.

. ..

3.7.17. ip_ct_udp_timeout_stream

The ip_ct_udp_timeout_stream variable specifies the timeout values of the UDP streams once they have sent enough packets to reach the assured state."




If you don't believe me, you don't believe me.

How could we confirm or reject this empirically?
The only way I know how is to examine firewall logs (I can see unreplied flags, meaning no response) in conjunction with examining logs from another service (a SIP trace for example and watching a phone connection drop at specific times). Someone assuredly has a better answer to this than I do. You might want to try asking over at dslreports. This eats up too much of my time.

No, I never asserted that what I changed is Unreplied -- that's what I'm asking confirmation for. What I said is that I can change UDP Timeout in the GUI and that change is reflected in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout .
Fair enough

I just dug up another router with BrainSlayer's build of ddwrt (r41418 from 2019 as opposed to old posts from 2016) and I can confirm the same defaults and behavior as on Kong: UDP Timeout in GUI defaults to 120, and changing it modifies /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout . /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream is 180 .
Then they've changed the defaults in the firmware since those threads were created and also what is affected by the GUI field (or a bug has been introduced). I would sure like to know what need is required for a 120s unreplied UDP timeout, or why it was decided to use 120s for a default (meaning there would be some common need for it) for unreplied UDP timeout. I'm not being sarcastic. I would like to know the reason.

180 for Assured is a pretty common router default.

Anyway, thank you for letting me know what changes have been made. I wasn’t aware those firmware changes had been made, so I apologize for any confusion.
Please do not send me emails; I do not work for nor represent Freephoneline or Fongo. Post questions on the forums so that others may learn from responses or assist you. Thank you. If you have an issue with your account or have a billing issue, submit a ticket here: https://support.fongo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Visit http://status.fongo.com/ to check FPL/Fongo service status. Freephoneline setup guides can be found at http://forum.fongo.com/viewforum.php?f=15.
fizikz
Quiet One
Posts: 47
Joined: 08/23/2009

Re: Freephoneline - service down?

Post by fizikz »

Thanks for the details and explanation about ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream . I also asked on dslreports and the suggestion by Mango to inspect /proc/net/ip_conntrack also seems to confirm what we have found here: https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32653 ... P-in-ddwrt

In summary, for recent ddwrt:

Unreplied UDP Timeout (default 120, editable in GUI as "UDP Timeout"): /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout
Assured UDP Timeout (default 180, not in GUI): /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream


I think that is as conclusive as it gets. That is, until the next time the firmware changes. ;)
Post Reply