On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:09:22 -0800 (PST), Chris Albertson wrote > > Stephens, I think preferably, introduces one new sip.conf > line for the internal _network_ which acceprts a "network > address in the form inside=192.168.111.0/14 Where the "14" > would be the number of zero bits in a 32-bit mask > > Waites used two .conf lines one for the IP address and one > for the mask. IMO Stephens' approach is more cleaner.
I agree, I was worrying more about the functionality than the config file. > Both of these have an "if" statment that checks to see if > the public address needs to be stuffed into the outbound > SIP packet. I would replace this "if" with one that checks > the result of a STUN query. STUN simply makes Asterisk > more self-configuring. Careful though -- we don't necessarily want to send a stun query each time ast_sip_ouraddrfor() is called. That would introduce unnecessary traffic as well as delay in setting up the call. > Ho, and one more thing. I think the NAT configuration stuff > needs to go in a more global place and not in sip.conf > as part of my STUN integration I'll look for a logical place > to but NAT stuff. I could add a nat.conf file but, "Oh no > not yet another *.conf file!" Suggestions???? > We need a place to list known STUN servers and a place to > put manual "overrides" to handle cases whereeither STUN fails > or gives a misleading result stun.conf? in order for other protocols to use stun, maybe it should be its own module, exporting ast_stun_ouraddrfor() or similar... > The STUN license is quite good. It is basically "BSD-like". > or X11-like and reads in short "do what you want with this > but keep this notice and don't blame us if this is broken" having it as its own module would also isolate the C++ stuff (in which the reference implementation is written) as well as the differently licensed code... -w _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
