17 Aug
2006
17 Aug
'06
10:11 p.m.
Weiter Leiter wrote:
2) What is the harm of calling fix_nated_contact()
in addition
to fix_nated_register() in a REGISTER message ? The configuration
file [1] carefully avoids doing this.
The harm is the same as above: if you do fix_nated_contact(), an AVP
(with the originating address of the REGISTER, the one that SER sees in
the networking layer, not the SIP layer) is set, instructing the
registrar to disregard the body of Contact HF and consider only this AVP
as true Contact.
More importantly, fix_nated_contact() modifies the URI of the Contact-HF
of the 200-OK, whereas fix_nated_register() only appends parameters to
the URI.
I'm not entirely sure if modifying the Contact URI of responses to
REGISTERs violates RFC3261, because I don't know exactly how to
interpret paragraph 10.3, number 8, but there are at least UACs which
don't accept a 200-OK with modified Contact-URI.
Andy