On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 16:17 +0100, Victor Pascual Ávila wrote: > > If it breaks these rules, it is no longer acting as a proxy. > > When a caller is behind a NAT, rewriting SDP in INVITE to include an > RTP relay's address in it is a pretty common practice. > Leaving RFC3261 fundamentalism aside-- do we consider it then still > legitimate enough to call it a "SIP proxy"?
To be fair to your customers, call it a "SIP Proxy*" with an explanation for the '*', or "A SIP Proxy with additional NAT Traversal functionality". That's what we're doing at the sipXecs project (which is based around a true proxy that now has the ability to mangle SDP for NATs, but since we can turn that off we still call it a proxy). _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
