The RURI. Thanks,
Jeff -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei Iancu Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:13 PM To: OpenSIPS users mailling list Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT fixup question Jeff, the VIA hdr does not require mangling - the addition of the "received" param is enough to handle nat issues. So the VIA you posted is correct form NAT traversal point of view. Regarding the user part of the URI - what URI you are talking about? RURI ? TO / FROM uri? Contact URI ? Regards, Bogdan Jeff Kronlage wrote: > Thanks Bogdan, > > An unrelated question: > > Does anything special need to be done with "via" statements when > implementing NAT transversal? > > Fix_nated_contact() takes care of the contact field for me, but I still > end up with: > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > 192.168.1.105:5060;rport=42080;received=64.YYY.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-e4e5 > cd84 > > I'm having some random problems with the user part of the URI randomly > vanishing after I call loose_route() when NAT is involved, and I'm > thinking these are related. > > Thanks, > > -- > Jeff Kronlage > Senior IT Engineer, Data102 > 102 South Tejon, Suite #1250 > Colorado Springs, CO 80903 > (719) 387-0000 x 1335 direct > (719) 578-8844 fax > [email protected] / http://www.data102.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei > Iancu > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:07 PM > To: OpenSIPS users mailling list > Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Additional info on potential registration > issue > > so DB ONLY mode......simply ignore the warning (see its meaning in my > previous post) . The contacts will still be shared, but the socket > information discarded. > > Regards, > Bogdan > > Jeff Kronlage wrote: > >> Usrloc mode is 3. >> >> -- >> Jeff Kronlage >> Senior IT Engineer, Data102 >> 102 South Tejon, Suite #1250 >> Colorado Springs, CO 80903 >> (719) 387-0000 x 1335 direct >> (719) 578-8844 fax >> [email protected] / http://www.data102.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei >> Iancu >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:32 AM >> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list >> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Additional info on potential >> > registration > >> issue >> >> So, this is the problem - each opensips instance loads only the usrloc >> > > >> records that have the a local socket corresponding to that instance. >> > In > >> other words, if the record was saved by the other instance, opensips >> will not load it. >> >> what db_mode do you use for usrloc? >> >> Regards, >> Bogdan >> >> Jeff Kronlage wrote: >> >> >>> Yes, shared location table over multiple servers. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei >>> Iancu >>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:33 PM >>> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list >>> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Additional info on potential >>> >>> >> registration >> >> >>> issue >>> >>> Hi Jeff, >>> >>> Do you use a shared location table (via multiple registrar servers) ? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bogdan >>> >>> Jeff Kronlage wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I'm getting this over and over in my syslog: >>>> >>>> WARNING:usrloc:get_all_db_ucontacts: non-local socket >>>> <udp:HI.DDE.N.12:5060>...ignoring >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
