Dan Pascu wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was evaluating an implementation for NAT pinging also via TCP
>> connection, but I just diging in the current pinging "logic" I found
>> some issues that needs to be sorted out first.
>>
>> B) PATH exten
On Thursday 11 December 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was evaluating an implementation for NAT pinging also via TCP
> connection, but I just diging in the current pinging "logic" I found
> some issues that needs to be sorted out first.
>
> B) PATH extension
>
> First of all if PATH i
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Jesus Rodriguez :
>
>>> So, the question is: if NAT detected and such a protocol mismatch is
>>> detected, should a registrar refuse the registration (as it will be
>>> anyhow unusable) ?
>>>
>> Maybe this could be a configurable policy via modparam
Hi Iñaki,
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2008/12/11 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu :
>
>
>> A) contact info versus network info
>>
>> When considering a REGISTER request, you have two sets of information: I
>> - registered contact ; II - network info (source IP/port, proto, local
>> socket where the request
Hi Jesus,
Jesus Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi Bogdan,
>
>> I was evaluating an implementation for NAT pinging also via TCP
>> connection, but I just diging in the current pinging "logic" I found
>> some issues that needs to be sorted out first.
>>
>> So, let's start from the presumption you do NAT pinging
2008/12/12 Jesus Rodriguez :
>> So, the question is: if NAT detected and such a protocol mismatch is
>> detected, should a registrar refuse the registration (as it will be
>> anyhow unusable) ?
>
>
> Maybe this could be a configurable policy via modparam for regristrar
> module. If the script writ
Hi Bogdan,
> I was evaluating an implementation for NAT pinging also via TCP
> connection, but I just diging in the current pinging "logic" I found
> some issues that needs to be sorted out first.
>
> So, let's start from the presumption you do NAT pinging only for NAT
> traversal cases :).
>
> T
