On 16.03.2012 17:14, yufei.tao wrote:
Hi
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?
yes
I understand the first point, in that the R-URI always
contains what the
client puts in the contact hf.
yes
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.
They achieve both the same. I don't remember the problems anymore which
caused add_contact_alias() to be implemented. IIRC I think it was that
some clients did not put "transport=tcp" into the Contact header and
thus the fix_anted_contact missed the transport - add_contact_alias
always adds the transport protocol. But that is just a guess, I may be
wrong.
klaus