10 Jan
2003
10 Jan
'03
10:47 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:38:03PM +0100, Jan Janak wrote:
Sounds good, go ahead. If you need any
implementation-related advice, post
a message to the mailing list, I will try to reply asap, some parts haven't
been well documented yet so don't hesitate to ask.
Thank you for your kind proposal!
I have one question:
Am I correct that in order to change some field in header I have to do
the following:
1. Check that _m->somefield is NULL and call parse_headers() with the
appropriate HDR_FOO flag.
2. Check that _m->somefield is non-NULL and return if false.
3. Modify _m->somefield according to the type of that field.
4. Using del_lump() mark original version of the header for deletion and
using insert_new_lump() indicate where modified version should be placed
before sending a message out.
-Maxim
regards, Jan.
On 10-01 19:27, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > Sounds reasonably - I'll do it that way.
>
> I am planning add a new nathelper module, which will export the
> following functions:
>
> add_rport() - insert a rport= parameter into the first Via field
> fix_nated_contact() - replaces host:port in Contact field with host:port
> we received this message from
> add_direction_passive() - adds direction=passive option to the SDP
>
> Then it would be possible to do the following at the very top of config
> before any other REGISTER/INVITE processing:
>
> if (method == "INVITE" || method == "REGISTER") {
> if (search("User-Agent: Cisco ATA.*") {
> add_rport();
> if (method == "INVITE") {
> add_direction_passive();
> };
> if (method == "REGISTER") {
> fix_nated_contact();
> };
> };
> };
>
> Does it sound reasonably for you?
>
> -Maxim
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Maxim
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 02:15:11PM +0100, Jan Janak wrote:
> > > On 10-01 14:32, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I need an advise on how to better implement one feature, which
isn't
> > > > currently present in SER. We need to allow UAs behind NAT properly
> > > > register with the registrar - by "properly" I mean that
host:port portion
> > > > of URI in Contact field should not be used, but host:port the
request
> > > > came from should be used instead. By definition we know that those
UAs
> > > > will support symmetric SIP signalling, so that this scheme will work
just
> > > > fine.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion there are two ways to do it: either add new
rewritecontact*
> > > > family of functions similar to rewritehost ones. or add a new flag
for
> > > > the save() function. This is where I need your help - which
implementation
> > > > looks better for you (or maybe you have even some better idea),
since
> > > > we are really interested in inclusion of our changes into the
mainline to
> > > > reduce our local hacks.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This should be implemented as a standalone module for ser. I want to
keep
> > > registrar clean, it should not be aware of NATs. So, create a new
module
> > > for ser that will contain all the NAT traversal helper functions, the
> > > functions will be then called from the config script.
> > >
> > > That includes modifications of contact, adding rport to Via and so on.
> > >
> > > regards, Jan.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>