#27: Unroutable Contact SIP header if behind NAT
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: cavedon | Owner: vadim
Type: defect | Status: reopened
Priority: major | Milestone: QuteCom 2.5
Component: phapi | Version: 2.2
Resolution: | Keywords:
Field_os: all |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by mikeqw):
Replying to [comment:13 ibc]:
> Replying to [comment:12 cavedon]:
> > Replying to [comment:11 ibc]:
> > > There is no a standard specifying it, and it doesn't seem very
robust for me.
> >
> > RFC3581 mentions that in section 9.
>
> Right, I didn't read it :)
>
>
> > > For example: the [http://www.direct-quotes.com cheap car
insurance]workaround you suggest would require Qutecom to send some
OPTIONS (or whatever request) prior to the REGISTER. Of course, you cannot
rely on the 407/401 reply for the first REGISTER since the registrar could
instead reply a "403 Forbidden" due to the private [http://www.online-
phentermine.com/adipex/adapix.html buy adipex online]address in Contact.
> >
> > I never suggested sending OPTIONS. I would rely on REGISTER. Does not
a 403 reply have a proper Via header?
>
> Yes, it's also valid.
>
>
> > > But sincerelly I don't understand why you insist on this workaround
that just solves signalling (and not media).
> >
> > LOL, now I noticed we had the same conversation 1 month ago.
>
> Hummm, yes... sorry XD
>
>
> > Actually the rport/received way has an advantage: if you are behind a
symmetric NAT and the [http://www.usquotesonline.com/cheap cheap auto
insurance] SIP server does not have a STUN server on the same port as the
SIP protocol; using a separate STUN server won't work.
>
> Yes, in fact draft-outbound requires the SIP proxy having a STUN server
running in port 5060 :)
>
>
> > That said, I agree with you that having proper client and server STUN
support is better!
>
> I insist on it isnce it's already implemented (or pseudo-implemented) in
Qutecom.
Thank you.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.qutecom.org/ticket/27#comment:19>
QuteCom <http://trac.qutecom.org>
_______________________________________________
QuteCom-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev
