[Serusers] add_rcv_param() for INVITEs

[Klaus Darilion]

Hi Martin!

As far as I understand, the problem is not the initial INVITE, but the 
in-dialog request, which use the fixed contact in the request URI. Correct?

Do you have problems with certain clients or is it an academical question?

regards,
klaus

Martin Koenig wrote:
> Hello Klaus,
> 
> I know that fix_nated_register works for REGISTERs, the question was 
> whether add_rcv_param() works for INVITEs ;)
> 
> Answer: It does not.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
> 
> Klaus Darilion wrote:
> 
>> I thin k I solved the problem using fix_nated_register instead of 
>> fix_nated_contact for REGISTER messages. (using nathelper)
>>
>> regards,
>> klaus
>>
>> Martin Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> is it possible to use add_rcv_param() also for Contact-HF of INVITEs, 
>>> instead of fix_nated_contact()?
>>>
>>> This would make sure that the NATed End Device gets fed exactly the 
>>> contact as R-URI that it announced in the INVITE:
>>>
>>> Example R-URI in Loose-Route Requests for fix_nated_contact():
>>>
>>> Ser (1.2.3.4):
>>> INVITE device at 4.5.6.7
>>> Route: 1.2.3.4;lr=on
>>>
>>> Device (10.0.0.1, NAT 4.5.6.7):
>>> INVITE device at 123.123.123.123
>>>
>>> With add_rcv_param():
>>>
>>> Ser:
>>> INVITE device at 10.0.0.1;rcv_param=4.5.6.7
>>> Route: 1.2.3.4;lr=on
>>>
>>> Device:
>>> INVITE device at 10.0.0.1
>>>
>>> The problem is that the End-Device, in the fix_nated_contact() 
>>> callflow, has to accept a Request that is not really for this device 
>>> (IP in Request-URI != IP of the Device). Imagine a Ser checkip uri == 
>>> myself. This would fail without knowing the public IP of the NAT and 
>>> hard-conding it into Ser.cfg.
>>>
>>> Does Ser support the rcv_param in Request-URI also?
>>>
>>> What do you think? Any experience on this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Serusers mailing list
>>> serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>