Thanks for your answer.
The funny thing is: I am trying quite hard to convince the vendor (actually a well-known
VoIP-chip/module/appliance maker) that FQDN in SDP is a good (and allowed) thing.
Even more funny: In the preceding firmware-release FQDN was no problem. But in the current
release they apparently *removed* the FQDN-support and now they try to convince me that
FQDN in SDP is not allowed :-( Although I sent them RFCs and everything to prove them
wrong.
But there you go.
I tried your suggestion with fix_nated_sdp and so far it seems to work. Thanks for the
tip!
Hopefully the vendor will change its RFC-support policy soon.
Kind regards,
Gerhard
-----Original Message-----
From: Zeus Ng [mailto:zeus.ng@isquare.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 8:30 AM
To: Gerhard Zweimüller
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] DNS Resolution of SDP-"Connection Address" at SER
Forcing SER to do stuff in order to fix problem UA implementation, I don't think this
is a good approach. Using FQDN as connection information in SDP is the recommended
approach in RFC 2327, though few UA do this. I would suggest you contact the vendor to fix
the UA that can't work with DNS.
Have a look on the fix_nated_sdp() function in nathelper. I haven't tried this before
but it might work. However, there is no guarantee. Let us know if it works.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerhard Zweimüller
Sent: Saturday, 11 June 2005 11:07 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] DNS Resolution of SDP-"Connection Address" at SER
Hi Serusers,
I have a problem with DNS resolution in SIP/SDP "Connection
Information"
/ "ConnectionAddress". Maybe somebody can help me:
In the network we use SIP-UAs that are integrated into ADSL-Modems
from Allied Telesyn (AT RG 634).
The SIP-client itself works OK. But when the unit is given a
system-name in the configuration, it will always use its DNS-name
instead of its IP-addr as "Connection Address" in the "Connection
Information" in SDP in INVITE and corresponding OK messages.
Now we want to add SIP-UAs that are NOT capable of resolving DNS-Names
in the "Connection Address" field.
Alle messages pass through SER of course and the SDP-part so far
remains unchanged.
Now my question to the list:
Is there a simple way of forcing SER to do the DNS-resolution of in
incoming message, put in the IP-address in "Connection Address" and
forward it to the other UA?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Gerhard
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dieses Mail wurde vom Infotech SecureMail Service ueberprueft und fuer sicher befunden.
Fuer weitere Informationen zu Infotech SecureMail Service waehlen Sie bitte:
www.infotech.at/securemail/
This email has been scanned by Infotech SecureMail Service and it has been classified as
secure.
For more information on Infotech SecureMail direct your web browser to:
www.infotech.at/securemail/