14 Dec
2006
14 Dec
'06
8:35 p.m.
Andreas Granig wrote:
yes, that's right.
regards,
bogdan
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
well.... :)
I would say yes...maybe adding 16 for safety
reasons ;).
Good idea, but I was just looking at client_nat_test of mediaproxy
module, not nat_uac_test of nathelper.
To avoid confusions like that, I'd generally propose to rip out the
nat-traversal stuff (client_nat_test, fix_contact) from mediaproxy,
because it does exactly the same as the corresponding nathelper
functions (nat_uac_test and fix_nated_contact). I don't see the point
of having redundant code here.
other opinions on the topic are welcomed!
what about "intelligent" ALGs on the
path?
As noted before, customers are strongly advised not to use any. I
guess, you all know why ;o)
And there's no other point on the path where an ALG not under
customer's or our control could be placed in this specific deployment.