I thin k I solved the problem using fix_nated_register instead of
fix_nated_contact for REGISTER messages. (using nathelper)
regards,
klaus
Martin Koenig wrote:
Hello,
is it possible to use add_rcv_param() also for Contact-HF of INVITEs,
instead of fix_nated_contact()?
This would make sure that the NATed End Device gets fed exactly the
contact as R-URI that it announced in the INVITE:
Example R-URI in Loose-Route Requests for fix_nated_contact():
Ser (1.2.3.4):
INVITE device(a)4.5.6.7
Route: 1.2.3.4;lr=on
Device (10.0.0.1, NAT 4.5.6.7):
INVITE device(a)123.123.123.123
With add_rcv_param():
Ser:
INVITE device(a)10.0.0.1;rcv_param=4.5.6.7
Route: 1.2.3.4;lr=on
Device:
INVITE device(a)10.0.0.1
The problem is that the End-Device, in the fix_nated_contact() callflow,
has to accept a Request that is not really for this device (IP in
Request-URI != IP of the Device). Imagine a Ser checkip uri == myself.
This would fail without knowing the public IP of the NAT and
hard-conding it into Ser.cfg.
Does Ser support the rcv_param in Request-URI also?
What do you think? Any experience on this?
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers