[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       serusers
Subject:    Re: [Serusers] fix_nated_contact onreply
From:       "Nils Ohlmeier" <lists () ohlmeier ! org>
Date:       2009-02-27 13:16:57
Message-ID: 36c4e85ad0fc715460ca77eba62c55c0.squirrel () www ! ohlmeier ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Samuel,

> I have seen lots of default config files where in the reply route only
> after checking the message (client_nat_test(1)) fix_nated is called.
> Why is not called when the NAT flag is set upong lookup_XX?

because the Registrar module takes already care of setting everything up
correctly when lookup() is being called.

> In ser-oob I think the reply_route should include the case of a user
> called behind a NAT and the reply is not fixed due to some router in
> the middle. Will it hurt including fix_nated_contact in the case of
> checking the flag?

I'm not entriely sure that I get what mean/complain about.
When I take a look at the latest ser-oo.cfg from CVS Head
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/ser-oob.cfg?revision=1.46&view=markup
I see in the REPLY_ROUTE a nat_uac_test("12) call and a
fix_nated_contact() call afterwards. So the Contact of the B (called)
party should be fixed if he is located behind NAT.

Greetings
  Nils

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]