I have been using fix_nated_register/fix_nated_contact for NAT
traversal and all worked fine. I've come across add_contact_alias
and handle_ruri_alias: http://sip-router.org/wiki/tutorials/alias-example
where it says:
"The benefits of using add_contact_alias() and handle_ruri_alias()
functions instead of conventional NAT traversal solutions are:
Request-URI in requests to UAs behind NATs is
always what UAs expect
Re-use of tcp/tls sessions between proxy and
UAs
"
I assumed the 'conventional NAT traversal solution' here means
fix_nated_contact?
I understand the first point, in that the R-URI always contains what
the client puts in the contact hf.
But for the second point, about tcp/tls reuse, does
fix_nated_contact do the same trick, or does add_contact_alias and
handle_ruri_alias give you more benefit over fix_nated_contact? So
far I feel they achieve the same thing but would like this
confirmed/corrected.