8 Jun
2005
8 Jun
'05
2:55 p.m.
On May 30, 2005 at 11:08, Martin Koenig <martin.koenig(a)toplink-plannet.de> wrote:
Hello,
is it possible to use add_rcv_param() also for Contact-HF of INVITEs,
instead of fix_nated_contact()?
This would make sure that the NATed End Device gets fed exactly the
contact as R-URI that it announced in the INVITE:
Example R-URI in Loose-Route Requests for fix_nated_contact():
Ser (1.2.3.4):
INVITE device(a)4.5.6.7
Route: 1.2.3.4;lr=on
Device (10.0.0.1, NAT 4.5.6.7):
INVITE device(a)123.123.123.123
With add_rcv_param():
Ser:
INVITE device(a)10.0.0.1;rcv_param=4.5.6.7
Route: 1.2.3.4;lr=on
Device:
INVITE device(a)10.0.0.1
The problem is that the End-Device, in the fix_nated_contact() callflow,
has to accept a Request that is not really for this device (IP in
Request-URI != IP of the Device). Imagine a Ser checkip uri == myself.
This would fail without knowing the public IP of the NAT and
hard-conding it into Ser.cfg.
Does Ser support the rcv_param in Request-URI also?
No, but it would be very easy to add a function that would set the
dst_uri to the received_param value and would remove receveid_param from
the uri.
The question is where it will be the best place for it: the uri module,
nathelper?
Do you really need it?
Andrei