Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation - sr-users

8 Mar 2005

On 08-03 08:53, Jain, Rajnish wrote:
...
  Jan,
 I'm not much familiar w/ SER and at this point I've actually
 unsubscribed from this mailing list, but consider the following:

 You're right in storing the NAT's IP address and port in your location
 database and then later sending the SIP message to that address.
 However, why even have an option that results in the 200 OK for the
 REGISTER to be constructed incorrectly (that is w/ the NAT's IP/port as
 Contact).  
  Because you still need the function to rewrite the contacts of INVITE,
  SUBSCRIBE and other messages.

...
  If the user fails to set the option
(fix_nated_register), what are we
 going to gain by putting NAT's address in 200 OK's Contact? 

 Why not have
 the 200 OK always carry the correct Contacts?  
  Although it is not entirely correct, it works fine in many cases.
  fix_nated_contact is not going to dissapear anyway, because it is
  needed in other cases.

    Jan.