[Users] client_nat_test

[Andreas Granig]

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> I would say yes...maybe adding 16 for safety reasons ;). 

Good idea, but I was just looking at client_nat_test of mediaproxy 
module, not nat_uac_test of nathelper.

To avoid confusions like that, I'd generally propose to rip out the 
nat-traversal stuff (client_nat_test, fix_contact) from mediaproxy, 
because it does exactly the same as the corresponding nathelper 
functions (nat_uac_test and fix_nated_contact). I don't see the point of 
having redundant code here.

> what about 
> "intelligent" ALGs on the path?

As noted before, customers are strongly advised not to use any. I guess, 
you all know why ;o)
And there's no other point on the path where an ALG not under customer's 
or our control could be placed in this specific deployment.

Regards,
Andy