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 extension
First of
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2008/12/12 Jesus Rodriguez jes...@voztele.com:
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
Hi Iñaki,
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2008/12/11 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@voice-system.ro:
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
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 only for NAT
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 :).
The issues
2008/12/12 Jesus Rodriguez jes...@voztele.com:
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
