Johansson Olle E wrote: > 13 jan 2008 kl. 23.09 skrev Robert Moskowitz: > >> I have discovered a challenge with Asterisk running with a public IP >> address and thus not needing NAT, when working with a service that of >> course knows there has to be a NAT there.... >> >> I come here to the developer's list, as this requires some inside >> understanding of SIP/SDPs. > At this point, you have to change the source code. > > If there's no port number mentioned in a SIP uri, it means that we > default to the default in the RFC, which is 5060. So there's should be no > need to add > it to the URI and it should not make any difference in an ideal world ;-) Being one of the co-authors of RFC1918, I know the difference between and ideal world and the Internet :)
So if the SIP trunking definition for Broadvoice had, say, a port=6050, then :6050 would be in all the 'appropriate' URIs. Then I would need an IPTABLES packet mangler to attack all SIP packets, changing the port from 6050 to 5060 and all imbedded URIs as well. Scary thought. Guess I will just have to threaten Broadvoice that they fix this or I am going elsewhere. As their behaviour is what is broken... _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
