[SR-Users] nat_uac_test not recognized command in onreply_route

Hey it's me again. So I'm following the instructions in the Kamailio 5.1.x wiki module page for websocket configuration and it specifically mention to set this block: onreply_route[WS_REPLY] { xlog("L_INFO", "[CSeq $cs] Is in WS_REPLY."); xlog("L_INFO", "[CSeq $cs] Sending $rs $rr to $sel(via[2].host) via $sel(via[2].transport) len: $ml"); xlog("L_INFO", "[CSeq $cs] \n$mb \n"); if(nat_uac_test("64")) { # Do NAT traversal stuff for replies to a WebSocket connection # - even if it is not behind a NAT! # This won't be needed in the future if Kamailio and the # WebSocket client support Outbound and Path. add_contact_alias(); } } When I did this and started up Kamailio, it gave me an error: Jan 3 22:19:43 sjomainkama55 kamailio: ERROR: <core> [core/cfg.y:3309]: yyparse(): cfg. parser: failed to find command nat_uac_test (params 1) I moved that if statement to a route block and I was able to start it up. The wiki page for nathelper module specify this function can be run in onreply_route as well: 5.5. nat_uac_test(flags) Tries to guess if client's request originated behind a nat. The parameter determines what heuristics is used. Meaning of the flags is as follows: - *1* - The “Contact” header field is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 or RFC6598 addresses. - *2* - the "received" test is used: address in the “Via” header is compared against source IP address of signaling - *4* - The Top Most “Via” is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 or RFC6598 addresses - *8* - The SDP is searched for occurrence of RFC1918 or RFC6598 addresses - *16* - Test if the source port is different from the port in the “Via” header - *32* - Test if the source IP address of signaling is a RFC1918 or RFC6598 address - *64* - Test if the source connection of signaling is a WebSocket - *128* - Test if the “Contact” header URI port differs from the source port of the request (Warning: this is might be legal or even intended combination in non NATted scenarios) All flags can be bitwise combined, the test returns true if any of the tests identified a NAT. This function can be used from REQUEST_ROUTE, ONREPLY_ROUTE, FAILURE_ROUTE, BRANCH_ROUTE. is this some known bug in 5.1.x? Thanks -- Andy Chen achen@ &lt;achen(a)thinkingphones.com&gt;fuze.com -- *Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you.*