[Users] client_nat_test

[Klaus Darilion]

Dan Pascu wrote:
> With this kind of statements (and the previous ones you made on the 
> subject) you only prove that you do not use mediaproxy, do not know what 
> it has to offer when compared to nathelper and do not care too much what 
> happens to it. This is why it has a README which details its capabilities 
> and how it compares with nathelper and what are its advantages.

nathelper has 2 more NAT tests than mediaproxy
nathelper has fix_nated_register (which is essential for some clients)
nathelper can signal flags to rtpproxy (e.g. necessary for bridging mode)
nathelper allows "SIP ping"

mediaproxy has signaling AVP
mediaproxy can deal with asymmetric clients

IMO the nathelper benefits overrule the mediaproxy benefits. IMO 
asymmetric clients should be blocked (poor implementation). Of course 
Cisco gateways are asymmetric, but this is no big deal, as usually there 
are no NATs between gateway and proxy. And asymmetric clients do not 
work behind NAT.

Conclusion: If you use mediaproxy only for natted clients then you do 
not have to care about asymmetric clients in the proxy.

I'm not sure about the fix_contact() function in mediaproxy module. Does 
it really change the contact for REGISTERs or does it add a received 
parameter like the fix_nated_register from nathelper? If it really 
changes the contact then it wont work Nokia Phones.

regards
klaus


> 
>> I don't see any real issues. It's some work which has to be done, and
>> it's not really the most important thing on the todo-list, but it would
>> remove unneeded redundancy.
> 
> It is interesting for me to notice that all these proposals to chop down 
> mediaproxy come from someone who is not using it. Not from someone who is 
> using it and wants to improve it, but from someone who doesn't use it and 
> doesn't know what it has to offer, but for some strange reason feels the 
> need to modify it to fit his vision of things.
> 
> As a conclusion, I'm open to any suggestion that will make mediaproxy 
> better and easier to use. I will not agree however to any change that 
> will complicate my life as a mediaproxy user so that someone else who is 
> not using it feels better over what it provides.
> Currently the fact that the contact fixing/checking is present in 2 
> modules doesn't bother me at all, however all the proposals I've heard 
> here would make a mediaproxy user's life more complicated for no good 
> reason and they're not worth the price IMO.
> 


-- 
Klaus Darilion
nic.at