Actually I would nat=yes always, even if clients are not behind NAT os
otherwise the clietn can put some garbage into the contact header (e.g.
IP address of an upstream provider) and influence routing.
The only thing were nat=yes is bad is if you have an asymmetric client.
I do not know any
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Actually I would nat=yes always, even if clients are not behind NAT os
otherwise the clietn can put some garbage into the contact header (e.g.
IP address of an upstream provider) and influence routing.
No. There is a specific reason RFC 3261 says:
Registration
Alex Balashov wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Actually I would nat=yes always, even if clients are not behind NAT os
otherwise the clietn can put some garbage into the contact header (e.g.
IP address of an upstream provider) and influence routing.
No. There is a specific reason RFC 3261
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Alex Balashov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Alex Balashov wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Actually I would nat=yes always, even if clients are not behind NAT os
otherwise the clietn can put some garbage into the contact header (e.g.
IP address of an upstream
Steve Totaro wrote:
Alex is going to cling to to the RFC as if it were the gospel, and not
look at what would essentially be a good thing.
The RFC is not the gospel, but nor is it just a request for comment,
historical nomenclature aside.
It is the de facto standard for the implementation
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Alex Balashov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
Alex is going to cling to to the RFC as if it were the gospel, and not
look at what would essentially be a good thing.
The RFC is not the gospel, but nor is it just a request for comment,
You're right, all that verbose book-learnin' and complex protocol
implementations definitely don't belong together.
Steve Totaro wrote:
What is Asterisk designed to be? A PBX. (yes that is a period)
That question will fetch many answers depending on who you're talking
to. It is used for a
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Actually I would nat=yes always, even if clients are not behind NAT os
otherwise the clietn can put some garbage into the contact header (e.g.
IP address of an upstream provider) and influence routing.
No. There is a specific reason RFC
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Steve Totaro wrote:
Alex is going to cling to to the RFC as if it were the gospel, and not
look at what would essentially be a good thing.
The RFC is not the gospel, but nor is it just a request for comment,
historical nomenclature aside.
It is the de facto
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Of course we know that we should implement RFC conform. But RFC 3261 has
ignored the fact that the Internet is full of NATs and standard conform
implementations can not work. This in the case of SIP it necessary to
break the RFC.
By default?
NAT itself is a hack;
Klaus Darilion wrote:
This is a different scenario. In this case of course I want the public
IP of the client, not of the load balancer. So, yes - in this case
nat=no is useful for Asterisk. Nevertheless I ignore the IP provided by
the client in the contact header completely - I always use
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
This is a different scenario. In this case of course I want the public
IP of the client, not of the load balancer. So, yes - in this case
nat=no is useful for Asterisk. Nevertheless I ignore the IP provided by
the client in the contact
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Of course we know that we should implement RFC conform. But RFC 3261 has
ignored the fact that the Internet is full of NATs and standard conform
implementations can not work. This in the case of SIP it necessary to
break the RFC.
By
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Very often the authentication between gateway and proxy is done based on
IP address.
Now, the customers SIP client at 3.3.3.3 REGISTERs to the proxy with
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If now there is an incoming call to the customer, the Proxy/Asterisk
will
I have done some large installs where people are going to be in the office,
sometimes out, work from home, it always changes sorta thing..
I have found that setting all device profiles to Nat=yes Just Works
whether they are on the LAN or not and this is even on larger scale systems
with
Steve Totaro wrote:
I have done some large installs where people are going to be in the
office, sometimes out, work from home, it always changes sorta thing..
I have found that setting all device profiles to Nat=yes Just Works
whether they are on the LAN or not and this is even on
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Alex Balashov [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I have done some large installs where people are going to be in the
office, sometimes out, work from home, it always changes sorta
thing..
I have found that setting all device profiles to
Steve Totaro wrote:
While not taking the time to look, and if memory serves me correctly,
LAN devices appear on the correct ports even with nat=yes. I may be
wrong I will have to double check this when I have a moment.
That is not my understanding from the code.
Also, I am curious -
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alex Balashov [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
While not taking the time to look, and if memory serves me correctly,
LAN devices appear on the correct ports even with nat=yes. I may be
wrong I will have to double check this when I have a
Steve Totaro wrote:
I believe that if you are speaking of code and Asterisk's implementation
of the SIP RFC it is already very borked in many many ways. I speak
from what I see in userspace, real-world, although, as I said, I am
going from memory and could be wrong.
Yeah, I know. But
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Alex Balashov [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I believe that if you are speaking of code and Asterisk's implementation
of the SIP RFC it is already very borked in many many ways. I speak
from what I see in userspace, real-world, although, as I
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 18:34:45 Steve Totaro wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Alex Balashov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I believe that if you are speaking of code and Asterisk's
implementation of the SIP RFC it is already very borked in many many
ways. I
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Tilghman Lesher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 18:34:45 Steve Totaro wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Alex Balashov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I believe that if you are speaking of code and Asterisk's
Alex Balashov wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I have done some large installs where people are going to be in the
office, sometimes out, work from home, it always changes sorta thing..
I have found that setting all device profiles to Nat=yes Just Works
whether they are on the LAN or not
24 matches
Mail list logo
