RE: [Serusers] Rewriting URI in the Contact field

What is this device? Where can I get one? What does it cost?

Thanks :-) ---greg > -----Original Message----- > From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org > [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Sobolev > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:15 AM > To: Jiri Kuthan > Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; kapitan(a)portaone.com > Subject: Re: [Serusers] Rewriting URI in the Contact field > > > Yes, I know - we have studied all those methods in details. Our > method of choice is symmetric signalling/symmetric media

> due to the following reasons: > > 1. Things should work without modifying or reconfiguring existing > user's infrastructure (NATs) and should be compatible with all > widely-used NATs. > > 2. We are bound to ata186 as UA. It is compatible with

> Support for other UAs isn't required. > > 3. The calls will be terminated to Cisco GWs, while

> was recently added into Cisco IOS, so that theoretically the only > thing we need is to add received/rport support into

> and update IOS at termination points. > > 4. No media relay is allowed, because this will create excessive > bandwith load in a single point. > > 5. COMEDIA support is likely to become part of the

> our investments into development are protected. > > -Maxim > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 02:26:07PM +0100, Jiri Kuthan wrote: > > There is actually a plenty of options how to traverse NATs. > > Sadly, none of them works in all possible scenarios. > > > > a) STUN -- some phones (kphone for linux, snom hardphones) > > have the ability to "fool" NATs to accomplish traversal > > using the STUN protocols; particularly good if you cannot > > manipulate the NAT > > b) geek tweaks -- you have a configurable NAT and configurable > > phones (there are some of both of them). you

> > port forwarding in the NAT and phones to advertise the > > public address in contacts and elsewhere > > c) ALG -- use a SIP-aware NAT such as PIX or Intertex > > d) UPnP -- takes UPnP enables phones (snom is) and NATs > > e) SIP/media relay -- that's a too ugly story > > > > What to choose best depends on your network setting -- can you > > tweak the NAT, can you afford replacing it with a SIP-enabled > > one, are the phones you are using configurable or do they use > > STUN, do you have a server on the public or private NAT side > > or on each of them, etc. > > > > I remember someone shared with us he was using ser in his > > network to do the translation of SIP addresses on behalf > > ot the phones. The ser script was configured to statically > > rewrite private IP addresses to the public address using > > replace/textops. > > > > -Jiri > > > > At 01:32 PM 1/10/2003, 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

> > >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. > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Maxim > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Serusers mailing list > > >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > -- > > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >