[Users] client_nat_test

[Klaus Darilion]

Andreas Granig wrote:
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>> I would say yes...maybe adding 16 for safety reasons ;). 
> 
> Good idea, but I was just looking at client_nat_test of mediaproxy 
> module, not nat_uac_test of nathelper.
> 
> To avoid confusions like that, I'd generally propose to rip out the 
> nat-traversal stuff (client_nat_test, fix_contact) from mediaproxy, 
> because it does exactly the same as the corresponding nathelper 
> functions (nat_uac_test and fix_nated_contact). I don't see the point of 
> having redundant code here.

Makes sense. I use mediaproxy for RTP proxy, but nathelper for 
fix_nated.....

regards
klaus

> 
>> what about "intelligent" ALGs on the path?
> 
> As noted before, customers are strongly advised not to use any. I guess, 
> you all know why ;o)
> And there's no other point on the path where an ALG not under customer's 
> or our control could be placed in this specific deployment.
> 
> Regards,
> Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users


-- 
Klaus Darilion
nic.at