Juha Heinanen schrieb:
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.
Yes, TCP is another problem. But the solution is more or less the same.
klaus
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
