1 Mar
2004
1 Mar
'04
11 p.m.
We ran into this same issue.
Test #2 : #define NAT_UAC_TEST_RCVD 0x02
This should test for:
/*
* test if source address of signaling is different from
* address advertised in Via
*/
So if the ATA is port forwarded then it will give a positive result since
the IP in the Via Header is different from the source IP. Maybe you could
do just Test#1 which is for the Contact Header. Or you can do as we do
which is to define a special "group" called "port_forwarded", put
those port
forwarded UACs in it, and just do a test logic for it like this:
if (!(is_user_in("From", "port_forwarded")) {
...do not do RTP Proxy
}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dinesh" <feedbak(a)imelhk.com>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: [Serusers] nat_uac_test
I am using nat_uac_test("2") to only select
UAs behind NAT that may need
NAThelper assistance.
However I find that natt_uac_test("2") is also giving a positive on some
ATA's that we have setup with port forwarding or DMZ. These ATA have
also been set to determine the external IP of the routers they are on
using VIA - They function without the nathelper module.
These UA do not need any help from NAT helper but because they are
flaged they are pinged to keeps ports alive and they are forced through
the RTPProxy.
Any Ideas. We know in advance which UA are setup with Port
Forwarding/DMZ. Can a flag be set in the subscriber table which is also
tested at the time of Registration if so, how?
if (nat_uac_test("2")) {
if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) {
fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of
signalling
if (method == "INVITE") {
fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP
};
force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via
setflag(6); # Mark as NATed
};
};
Thanks,
Dinesh
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers