[OpenSIPS-Users] NAT: Why replacing "Contact" with thereceivedpublic IP:port instead of adding a parameter with it?
bogdan at voice-system.ro
Thu Nov 13 11:17:12 CET 2008
It might be right (from semantic pov) - I suggested this as there are
other devices using it for similar purpose, so there is a kind of
unwritten convention and the probability to work (to be properly
interpreted by other devices) is higher.
BTW, did you know if the RFC recommends/specifies a param for this purpose ?
Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:
>> Hi Iñaki,
>> If I'm not wrong, it's it the "maddr" param what you are looking for.
>> Without aiming a bias, I was also evaluating the option to store the
>> original contact and to restore it back.
> Technically, I think maddr can be used (and there is some vendor
> equipment which uses it) and is probably the easiest way to implement
> this feature.
> But I think from the semantic point of view using maddr (=multicast
> address) is misleading, as it is defined for usage of SIP with multicast.
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> 2008/11/7 Schumann Sebastian <Sebastian.Schumann at t-com.sk>:
>>>> Hi Inaki
>>>> Yes, you are right. Seems my changes work where they should (all
>>>> same type of phones where modification has to take place, Contact
>>>> header somehow "well-defined") but are not universal.
>>>> I will take your inputs to improve my used functions. Thanks!
>>> I suggest you to study the SIP URI BNF grammar in RFC 3261. It's
>>> really complex.
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
More information about the Users