Hi Nils,<br><br>responses inline...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/2/27 Nils Ohlmeier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@ohlmeier.org">lists@ohlmeier.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Samuel,<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> I have seen lots of default config files where in the reply route only<br>
> after checking the message (client_nat_test(1)) fix_nated is called.<br>
> Why is not called when the NAT flag is set upong lookup_XX?<br>
<br>
</div>because the Registrar module takes already care of setting everything up<br>
correctly when lookup() is being called.</blockquote><div><br>But, as far as I know, only in the called direction. If the called party is registered and behind NAT the lookup will indeed set the destination to the "public" side of the NAT. I was more interested in "rewriting" the Contact for the 200 OK because otherwise we find the classical lost of ACK and call drop after 2x-3x seconds<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> In ser-oob I think the reply_route should include the case of a user<br>
> called behind a NAT and the reply is not fixed due to some router in<br>
> the middle. Will it hurt including fix_nated_contact in the case of<br>
> checking the flag?<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not entriely sure that I get what mean/complain about.<br>
When I take a look at the latest ser-oo.cfg from CVS Head<br>
<a href="http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/ser-oob.cfg?revision=1.46&view=markup" target="_blank">http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/ser-oob.cfg?revision=1.46&view=markup</a><br>
I see in the REPLY_ROUTE a nat_uac_test("12) call and a<br>
fix_nated_contact() call afterwards. So the Contact of the B (called)<br>
party should be fixed if he is located behind NAT.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>But nat_uac_test will only check for private addresses on Contact, isn't it? <br>Let me try to explain with a message exchange<br><br>---INVITE--> a.b.c.d:61000<br><--200OK-- source=a.b.c.d:61000 but Contact: a.b.c.d<br>
<br>so ACK will be sent to a.b.c.d:5060 (deafult SIP port) instead of the "nated" port 61000.<br><br>I know it's some ALG in the router but I was just wondering whether checking the natflag in the onreply route and calling fix_nated_contact would help in this case or it would cause other issues.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
Greetings<br>
<font color="#888888"> Nils<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div>Thanks for everythin and I hope I've been clearer in this mail,<br>Samuel.<br>