RE: [Serusers] nat test based on rfc1918 address in call-id field

-----Original Message----- From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:45 PM To: Richard; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] nat test based on rfc1918 address in call-id field Sorry. I was a bit quick there. Do you have any particular UAs/scenarios in mind where this test will be more appropriate than the existing? g-)

Richard wrote: > ________________________________________ > From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:00 PM > To: Richard; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: Re: [Serusers] nat test based on rfc1918 address in call-id > field > >> If I understand you correctly, you are talking about test 16 found >> in nathelper cvs. You may want to have a look at that test first. >> You call nat_uac-test("19") to trigger the test. >> g-) > > eh. test 16 is different. it tests if the source port is different > from the port in Via. > > The proposed test checks the private ip in Call-ID field. > >>> Hi, >>> I am thinking about having more NAT test on a sip packet. Just want >>> to find out if it is useful. >>> I run into some situations that some 'smart' UAs try to detect its >>> external IP and put the external IP address into the sip packet. >>> Depending on the network and NAT firewall setup, it may or may not >>> set the right external IP and port in the packet. If it is not, but >>> pretends to be on the public internet, then there is most likely a >>> one-way voice or no voice issue. I'd like to be able to detect and >>> force it to use a nat proxy. By checking these packets, I found that >>> the only trace is the private IP address in the call-id header >>> field. It will be useful to check if a RFC1918 address is used in >>> the call-id. I understand that it is not a thorough test for NAT, >>> well, just like any other NAT test. >>> Can someone please comment if it is a good test?