[SR-Users] Trouble with nat_uac_test()

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Thu Aug 18 09:02:42 CEST 2016

On 17/08/16 20:26, Noah Mehl wrote:
> I discussed this with Alex Balashov off-line, and he answered my
> questions:
>>  1. A flag of 3, I don’t understand.  I read the documentation
>>     <http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.4.x/modules/nathelper.html#nathelper.f.nat_uac_test>,
>>     and there is a 1,2,4,8,etc…  So, I’m guessing that a flag of 3,
>>     means 1+2?
> Yes, apparently this is a bit
> array: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_array and a value of 3 = 1+2.
>>  2. If #1 is true, then "the "received" test is used: address in
>>     the “Via” header is compared against source IP address of signaling”
>>      1. I don’t understand this test, as I’m pretty sure that the
>>         200OK that’s getting re-written is properly constructed.  I
>>         guess I’m trying to understand when one would want to use
>>         this test?
> Although we weren’t able to come up with an example for this test, it
> does not seem to apply to my environment.  Updating the flag to 1
> solves my issue.
This is when the sip message was sent from a.b.c.d and the Via header
has x.y.z.w. if you get a pcap with the request, we can check and see if
the test is true for it.

On the other hand, you should use
set_contact_alias()/handle_ruri_alias() instead of fix_nated_contact()
(see how default kamailio.cfg does it) -- it is safer for such cases and
avoids getting in troubles with devices that are strict in checking if
the r-uri is the contact they set previously.


Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com - http://www.kamailio.org
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20160818/11945994/attachment.html>

More information about the sr-users mailing list