[SR-Users] add_contact_alias and handle_ruri_alias vs fix_nated_contact

[yufei.tao]

Hi

I have been using fix_nated_register/fix_nated_contact for NAT traversal
and all worked fine. I've come across add_contact_alias and
handle_ruri_alias:
http://sip-router.org/wiki/tutorials/alias-example
where it says:

"The benefits of using add_contact_alias() and handle_ruri_alias()
functions instead of conventional NAT traversal solutions are:

    *
      Request-URI in requests to UAs behind NATs is always what UAs expect
    *
      Re-use of tcp/tls sessions between proxy and UAs

"
I assumed the 'conventional NAT traversal solution' here means
fix_nated_contact?

I understand the first point, in that the R-URI always contains what the
client puts in the contact hf.

But for the second point, about tcp/tls reuse, does fix_nated_contact do
the same trick, or does add_contact_alias and handle_ruri_alias give you
more benefit over fix_nated_contact? So far I feel they achieve the same
thing but would like this confirmed/corrected.

Thank you very much!

Yufei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20120316/de453328/attachment.htm>