Just reporting...
That's the parameter I needed. I set notify_is_refresh to 0 and everything seems to work through NAT.
Thanks, Samuel.
2007/8/6, Vaclav Kubart vaclav.kubart@iptel.org:
Yes, you are right.
But Maxim has introduced new module parameter by which you can say, that NOTIFY is not target refresh request and thus NOTIFY responses won't refresh the target.
From my point of view is this only temporary hack (because NOTIFY was in some discussions aggreed to be target refresh). Better solution is probably to let the NOTIFY go through config script and process it and its responses by nathelper.
VaclavOn Po, srp 06, 2007 at 10:24:17 +0200, samuel wrote:
mmmm
coming back to the discussion....the missing OK Contact mangle happened
with
a separated prosence proxy...
I was wondering...In the case of a single SIP server (proxy,registrar,presence,...) when the "presence" part sends the NOTIFY
to
a natted UA and this latter one replies with the 200OK, the Contact
would
contain the internal IP and since this NOTIFY is not handled by the SER route config file , it can not be managed by nathelper|mediaproxy
options.
This would cause a modification in the target of the dialog to the
internal
IP (following RFC 3261) and the presence dialog would be useless because
no
notifications would work....am I right?
Thanks, Samuel.
2007/8/3, samuel samu60@gmail.com:
Ok.
I found out the "problem", there was a missing NAT handling of the responses, and the 200 OK response updated the target dialog with a non-routable IP. That's why further messages had the wronf Req-URI.
Thanks for your pointers, sam.
2007/8/2, Vaclav Kubart vaclav.kubart@iptel.org:
Hi Samuel, Maxim Sobolev was fighting with NAT and presence some time ago.
I was trying to allow calling script route block when sending NOTIFY
to
allow its modifications, but I had not enough time to get results.
The NOTIFY should be constructed according RFC 3261; the request URI should be the value from Contact of the SUBSCRIBE request (if only
loose
routers in routes appear).
To, From, Via and routes should follow RFC 3261 too.
Contact header value is the address at which the SUBSCRIBE request arrives to the server (according examples in RFC 3856, this is controversial but possible).
Modifying of async_auth_queries should have no influence on sent NOTIFYs. If does, it is probably a bug.
All headers you mentioned are derived from dialog initiating
SUBSCRIBE
request as RFC says.
VaclavOn Čt, srp 02, 2007 at 12:05:02 +0200, samuel wrote:
Hi all!!!
I'm experiencing quite difficulties setting up a dedicated (and
separated)
presence server with NATted end-points and the dstblacklist
feature.
I'd like to get some info about the construction of the most
important
headers (Req-URI,Contact,To,From,Via,Routr) for the different
NOTIFY
modalities depending on the state of the subscription.
Setting up async_auth_queries I've seen the pending and the active
NOTIFY
have different Req-URI and the second one is blocked by the NAT
router.
Further mid-dialog NOTIFYs providing changes in the presence
status
has also
different headers... My main concern is whether the info for constructing the routing
headers is
taken from location table, from watcherinfo.dialog table, or from
the
incoming message...I know I could follow the code but an
explanation
would
provide a really helpfull overview and later checking the code
will be
much
simpler.
Thanks in advance, Samuel.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers