Weiter Leiter wrote: > 2) What is the harm of calling fix_nated_contact() in addition > to fix_nated_register() in a REGISTER message ? The configuration > file [1] carefully avoids doing this. > > The harm is the same as above: if you do fix_nated_contact(), an AVP > (with the originating address of the REGISTER, the one that SER sees in > the networking layer, not the SIP layer) is set, instructing the > registrar to disregard the body of Contact HF and consider only this AVP > as true Contact.
More importantly, fix_nated_contact() modifies the URI of the Contact-HF of the 200-OK, whereas fix_nated_register() only appends parameters to the URI. I'm not entirely sure if modifying the Contact URI of responses to REGISTERs violates RFC3261, because I don't know exactly how to interpret paragraph 10.3, number 8, but there are at least UACs which don't accept a 200-OK with modified Contact-URI. Andy _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
