Klaus Darilion writes: > > i first thought to add the $du test, but looks like the via test makes > > it unnecessary. however, loose_route() may be key to solving the reply > > problem: if loose_route() sets $du, it means that next hop is another > > proxy. then it is possible to set TO_PROXY flag and test it > > onreply_route. right? > > yes, but only in in-dialog requests.
that is what i meant. > In my setups currently I do the NAT decision in first request processing > and store the result in a RR-cookie. in-dialog NAT handling is purely > done on RR-cookie. RR-cookie defines if NAT handling is done for caller, > callee or both. > > Regarding NAT-detection my decision algorithm is simple and pragmatic: > if request comes from a local account (is_from_local()), then the caller > will be marked for NAT traversal (regardless if behind NAT or not. > Further, target will be analysed and calls to local users will be > NAT-handled. klaus, you keep on mentioning nat. these functions have nothing to do with nat detection. -- juha _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
