3 Dec
2005
3 Dec
'05
6:37 p.m.
Copy&paste from nathelper's README:
1.5.6. nat_uac_test(mode)
Tries to guess if client's request originated behind a nat.
The parameter determines what heuristics is used. If flag 1 is
set, the "received" test is used -- address in Via is compared
against source IP address of signaling. If flag 2 is set,
Contact header field is searched for occurrence of RFC1918
addresses. Both flags can be bitwise combined, the test
returns true if any of the tests identified a NAT.
So in short, if you call nat_uac_test("1"), you will get true if it has really
passed the NAT...
Michal
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 11:50:24PM +0100, Ladislav Andel wrote:
Hello,
I'm sorry for this basic question, but I have SER running on my LAN with
(RFC1918) addresses with UAs on the same network.
Then there are UAs registering from behind NAT to this SER on the LAN
network.
(SER is not listening on any public IP and it's just used in the private
network)
I came across this issue. If a UA on the LAN network is registering to
SER the logic of ser.cfg recognize the UA is behind NAT
after nat_uac_test.
If I want to introduce NAT traversal with RTPproxy for this private
network nat_uac_test will always return that the UA
is behind NAT because it has RFC1918 IP address. The RTPproxy will be
used at all times for UAs on the network or even I introduce STUN for
NATed UAs
I know this is not a common usage of SER because it is invented to be
used on the global internet but I was just wondering is there any
possibility
not to use RTPproxy at all times for UAs on the private network?
Maybe this is a silly question but it would help me for my testing
purposes with SER where I will not have to use my setup with usage of
public IPs.
Thank you for any thoughts.
Ladislav
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers