[Users] nat flag and branch routes

[Richard Z]

Just a thought... is it possible to ingore the nat flag and just rely on the 
existence of dst_uri to indicate a NATed UA?

On 8/29/05, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at> wrote:
> 
> Ho Bodgan!
> 
> To use branch routes for branch-only NAT traversal also the nathelper
> and mediaproxy functions must be adopted to work in branch routes.
> 
> regards
> klaus
> 
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > indeed, prior branch_route, there is only one set of flags shared by all
> > branched - that's still unchanged.
> >
> > regards,
> > bogdan
> >
> >
> > Juha Heinanen wrote:
> >
> >> Klaus Darilion writes:
> >>
> >> > The nat flag which will be loaded during lookup() - will it be set
> >> for > each branch so it can be queried in branch_route for all of the
> >> > registered contacts, or should I use isdsturiset() instead of
> >> testing > for the NAT flag?
> >>
> >> i don't think that there is any changes regarding nat flag yet. nat
> >> flag is set if any of the contacts is behind nat. it would be nice if
> >> nat flag would be automatically set in branch route only if contact of
> >> the corresponding branch is behind nat.
> >>
> >> -- juha
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Users mailing list
> >> Users at openser.org
> >> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050830/9c4fc90f/attachment.htm>