[Serdev] [Tracker] Created: (SER-200) Patch for a new nathelper nat_uac_test (Contact != rport)

[Greger V. Teigre]

Thanks, Nils. This will simplify my config a tiny bit! :-)
g-)

Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
>
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 14:19, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>   
>> Nils Ohlmeier (JIRA) wrote:
>>     
>>> Patch for a new nathelper nat_uac_test (Contact != rport)
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: SER-200 URL: http://tracker.iptel.org/browse/SER-200 Project:
>>> SER Issue Type: Improvement Components: NAT Traversal Affects
>>> Versions: Ipteldorf Environment: Latest CVS code (Ottendorf version)
>>> from the 18.12.2006. Reporter: Nils Ohlmeier Priority: Minor
>>> Attachments: nathelper_contact_rport_test.patch
>>>
>>> The attached patch adds one more test to the nat_uac_test (0x20)
>>> which compares the port in the Contact header with the port value
>>> from the transport layer (UDP/TCP). This test can be helpful in
>>> scenarios with clients behind symmetric NATs and STUN support, where
>>> the wrong Contact header port may be the only indication for a NAT
>>> traversal, but not fixing these values breaks the further in-dialog
>>> communication. But be warned that this test should not be used by
>>> default, as it might break things for example in cases where UA's are
>>> on a public IP and advertising a different port in their Contact
>>> header with intention.
>>>       
>> Hi Nils!
>>
>> I thought this clients can also be spotted by comparing the port in the
>> topmost Via header and the port from which the message was received.
>>
>> Which clients needs this new test?
>>     
>
> I dont know which client(s) exactly. But the scenario is pretty simple:
> the UA answers (with the "broken" STUN support and behind a sym NAT) with 200 
> OK on an re-INVITE -> the topmost Via is not from the UA... you could ask 
> your registrar if it sits behind a NAT, but if the first hop is not your 
> registrar... You see?
>
> Cheers
>   Nils
> _______________________________________________
> Serdev mailing list
> Serdev at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/attachments/20061220/9fce9794/attachment.htm