usrloc has this var: 3.1. nat_bflag (integer) The index of the branch flag to be used as NAT marker (if the contact is or not natted). This is a branch flag and it will be imported and used by all other modules depending of usrloc module. it is a fine flag telling that a particular contact is behind nat, but it does not tell if that particular contact should be nat pinged. nathelper has this var: 4.3. ping_nated_only (integer) If this variable is set then only contacts that have "behind_NAT" flag in user location database set will get ping. that is not a good var, because not contacts that are behind nat (e.g. ones that use tcp or outbound) need to be pinged. now in master a new nathelper var was introduced (i guess for solving the above problem): 4.10. natping_disable_bflag (integer) What branch flag should be used by the module to disable NAT pings on a per-registration basis. If the given flag is set for a particular registration, then no NAT pings will be sent at all, regardless of any other conditions. i my opinion this solution is not good, because it complicates the decision process by requiring that two flags need to be checked in order to determine if a contact should be nat pinged. i would have liked to solve this problem by introducing a new nathelper var "nat ping this contact bflag" that tells which bflag to check when deciding if a contact should be nat pinged. that bflag would then be set before registrar save() is called in addition to setting the "behind nat" bflag. in my opinion there should have been discussion on this list before the natping_disable_bflag was introduced. also, for the benefit of db only usrloc, i would like to add a new "nat ping" column to location table, which tells if the contact should be nat pinged and if so how the pinging should be done. comments or should i just go ahead with the plan? -- juha