[Users] nat flag and branch routes

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at voice-system.ro
Wed Aug 31 11:59:12 CEST 2005


it works, but is not save since you can not be 100% that dst_uri 
presence is strictly related to NAT traversal. It's also used by RR 
module to force routing after loose_route; and by dispatcher for the 
same reasons.....

I see here two ways of approaching this issue:
    - to have per-branch flags also before transaction creation; will be 
a new param to append_branch (8 in total :-/), but this flags will not 
be accessible from script; only in branch route;
    - use something else than flags for NAT marking (something already 
present in all branch stages): nathelper, when builds the received URI 
(which will become dst_uri) will append a "nat=yes" parameter; this 
parameter will be easyly identify in branch route and NAT traversal may 
be activated....

any comments or new options are welcomed.......


Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:

> I would say yes, if you do not call other functions that alter the 
> r-uri/dst_uri, except lookup("location").
> Daniel
> On 08/30/05 19:43, Richard Z wrote:
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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
>>     > 

More information about the sr-users mailing list