[OpenSIPS-Users] NAT: Why replacing "Contact" with thereceivedpublic IP:port instead of adding a parameter with it?

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Klaus,

It might be right (from semantic pov) - I suggested this as there are 
other devices using it for similar purpose, so there is a kind of 
unwritten convention and the probability to work (to be properly 
interpreted by other devices) is higher.

BTW, did you know if the RFC recommends/specifies a param for this purpose ?

Regards,
Bogdan


Klaus Darilion wrote:
>
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:
>> Hi Iñaki,
>>
>> If I'm not wrong, it's it the "maddr" param what you are looking for. 
>> Without aiming a bias, I was also evaluating the option to store the 
>> original contact and to restore it back.
>
> Technically, I think maddr can be used (and there is some vendor 
> equipment which uses it) and is probably the easiest way to implement 
> this feature.
>
> But I think from the semantic point of view using maddr (=multicast 
> address) is misleading, as it is defined for usage of SIP with multicast.
>
> regards
> klaus
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bogdan
>>
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> 2008/11/7 Schumann Sebastian <Sebastian.Schumann at t-com.sk>:
>>>  
>>>> Hi Inaki
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are right. Seems my changes work where they should (all 
>>>> same type of phones where modification has to take place, Contact 
>>>> header somehow "well-defined") but are not universal.
>>>>
>>>> I will take your inputs to improve my used functions. Thanks!
>>>>     
>>> I suggest you to study the SIP URI BNF grammar in RFC 3261. It's 
>>> really complex.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>