[Serusers] nat + MESSAGE packets

[Greger V. Teigre]

Yes. All dialog-creating or non-dialog initial requests that are not 
part of a transaction should be NAT-handled as an INVITE (and looked up 
etc).
g-)

Andrey Kuprianov wrote:
> Btw, Greger, does the same go for SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY requests?
>
> On 10/20/06, Greger V. Teigre <greger at teigre.com> wrote:
>> MESSAGE should be NAT-handled as an INVITE.
>> g-)
>>
>> Mark Price wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm finding that my ser clients can't can only unreliably communicate 
>> using
>> MESSAGE packets, and that presence and presence subscriptions are 
>> equally
>> unreliable (i.e. very).
>> The odd thing is that they do sometimes, in fact, work.
>> Anyways, I discovered that there are definitely NAT issues going on, 
>> since I
>> can see inbound MESSAGE packets banging on the outside of my firewall.
>> What are people doing to mitigate this?
>>
>> Mark
>> ________________________________
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers
>> mailing
>> list
> Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> Serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>