[Devel] re: custom usrloc flags for registrar module

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Juha,

the nat_flag will probably remain a MSG flag and not a UL flag (in the 
usrloc set of flags), otherwise you will loose the branch capability. 
So, going back to alternatives I listed:
    1) already works
    2) as the flags will be per contact (not per AOR), a lookup will may 
bring several contacts, each with its one UL flags. the registrar module 
will push it to the MSG flags to corresponding branch (according to 
"use_branch_flags" param).

so, I see no problem in any of the cases.

regards,
bogdan

Juha Heinanen wrote:

> > now, going back to the nat_flag :
> >     1) if we let it as it is now, there will be problem as there is no 
> > mixture between the ul and msg flags.
> >     2) if you want to have it as dynamic flag (ul flag),  the nat_flag 
> > parameter will have to tell to reg/ul what UL flag should be used as nat 
> > flag - this is needed internally when fetching only natted records for 
> > pinging.
>
> > note that the UL flags will be visible only in the route type after 
> > location() and before save()
>
>there is currently nat_flag and sip_natping_flag. sip_natping_flag is
>used internally by usrloc and was not topic of this discussion.
>
>my understanding was that if nat_flag has been selected from branch flag
>range, then it will be automatically mapped to corresponding branch
>specific message flag when lookup() is called so that it is possible to
>check in branch route if contact of that branch is behind nat or not.
>if that is true, then the same should be possible also for the new
>flags (e.g. the proposed mediaproxy flag).
>
>-- juha
>  
>