[Users] nat flag and branch routes
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at voice-system.ro
Wed Aug 31 11:59:12 CEST 2005
Hi,
it works, but is not save since you can not be 100% that dst_uri
presence is strictly related to NAT traversal. It's also used by RR
module to force routing after loose_route; and by dispatcher for the
same reasons.....
I see here two ways of approaching this issue:
- to have per-branch flags also before transaction creation; will be
a new param to append_branch (8 in total :-/), but this flags will not
be accessible from script; only in branch route;
- use something else than flags for NAT marking (something already
present in all branch stages): nathelper, when builds the received URI
(which will become dst_uri) will append a "nat=yes" parameter; this
parameter will be easyly identify in branch route and NAT traversal may
be activated....
any comments or new options are welcomed.......
regards,
bogdan
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> I would say yes, if you do not call other functions that alter the
> r-uri/dst_uri, except lookup("location").
>
> Daniel
>
> On 08/30/05 19:43, Richard Z wrote:
>
>> Just a thought... is it possible to ingore the nat flag and just rely
>> on the existence of dst_uri to indicate a NATed UA?
>>
>> On 8/29/05, *Klaus Darilion* < klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
>> <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>> wrote:
>>
>> Ho Bodgan!
>>
>> To use branch routes for branch-only NAT traversal also the
>> nathelper
>> and mediaproxy functions must be adopted to work in branch routes.
>>
>> regards
>> klaus
>>
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > indeed, prior branch_route, there is only one set of flags
>> shared by all
>> > branched - that's still unchanged.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > bogdan
>> >
>
More information about the Users
mailing list