[Users] client_nat_test

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Andreas Granig wrote:

> 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.

well.... :)

>
> 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.

other opinions on the topic are welcomed!

>
>> 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.

yes, that's right.

regards,
bogdan