[Serusers] NAT and private addressing questions

[Allan]

The reason I removed the private range is because my
gateway (in this case a single UA simulating a
gateway) is privately addressed and does not site
behind a NAT.

Regards,
Allan

 --- Allan <voip_tango at yahoo.ca> wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> I have over the last few weeks been trying to get
> ser
> to work with rtpproxy and NAT.  Today I was finally
> able to make calls from and to a privately addressed
> UA located behind a NAT device.
> 
> My questions are regarding the NAT example config
> that
> is included with the CVS and the section dealing
> with
> private addressing.  In order for my calls to go
> through I had to remove one of the private ranges
> from
> the following section:
> 
> route[1]
> {
>         # !! Nathelper
>         if
>
(uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)"
> && !search("^Route:")){
>             sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward
> to
> private IP addresses");
>             break;
>         };
> 
> Why is there a need to restrict what goes to
> rtpproxy?
>  Is it related to how nathelper flags a NATed UA?  I
> think the nathelper module identifies a NATed UA by
> looking to see if the via and received parameters
> are
> different.  There is also a note regarding private
> addressing (RFC 1918).  Can someone clarify this
> relationship?
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> Allan 
> 
> 
>
______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>  

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca