15 Dec
2006
15 Dec
'06
5:41 p.m.
On Friday 15 December 2006 17:01, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi,
I would say, Dan's opinion is critical as he is the mediproxy
maintainer.
The point of that duplicated code there is to not have to load both
modules at the same time.
Besides that, they don't do _exactly_ the same thing at all.
The mediaproxy versions handle asymmetric clients and know when not to
alter the port of the contact and also when not to include the port in
the source address checks. Also the source address check verifies both
the IP and the port not only the IP as the nathelper version does. I have
cases of phones behind NAT that the nathelper checks fail to detect while
the mediaproxy checks do.
regards,
bogdan
Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> To avoid confusions like that, I'd generally propose to rip out the
>> nat-traversal stuff (client_nat_test, fix_contact) from mediaproxy,
>> because it does exactly the same as the corresponding nathelper
>> functions (nat_uac_test and fix_nated_contact). I don't see the
>> point of having redundant code here.
>
> Makes sense. I use mediaproxy for RTP proxy, but nathelper for
> fix_nated.....
--
Dan