On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Alain Totouom <alain.totouom at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> IMHO this assertion is not correct.
> >> In such a case you might have 3 possible NAT types
> >> - a port restricted (Test #1 & #3)
> >> - a restricted (Test #1 & #3)
> >> - or a symmetric NAT (Test #1)
> >>
> >> depending on one (Test#1) or two (Test #1 & #3) additional tests you'll have to
> >> perform after Test#2 has failed. Please check rfc.3489 page 21 for clarity.
> >>
> >
> > This may not be possible since test 1B failed with no response.
> > Perhaps at best what we can do is something like this:
> >
> > if (test 1B failed with no response) {
> > if (test 3 is successful)
> > Type=Restricted;
> > else
> > Type=unknown (can't distinguish between Port Rest. and Symmetric).
> > }
> >
> didn't dig too deep in PJNATH's code by now ;o)
> But this is really bizarre since 1A has been successfully passed and 1B is just
> the same test using the CHANGED-ADDRESS from the 1A response !?!
> Either we have a mis-configured STUN-Server or we should better retry 1A to be
> pretty sure the CHANGED-ADDRESS is still the same and the topology hasn't
> changed between both requests what is unlikely to be the case!
>
Yes it's quite bizarre. The problem was port 3479, the usual port
number in CHANGED-ADDRESS, was blocked by the firewall, for some
reason, but port 3478 is not.
>
> > What do you think?
> >
> Your proposal is perfect, another but time consuming approach could be
>
> if (test 1B failed with no response) {
> if (test 3 is successful)
> Type=Restricted;
> else {
> if (test 1A is successful) {
> if (CHANGED-ADDRESS from 1. Test 1A == CHANGED-ADDRESS from 2. Test 1A *OR*
> test 1B with CHANGED-ADDRESS from 2. Test 1A failed with no response)
>
> Type=unknown (can't distinguish between Port Rest. and Symmetric)
Sorry I don't get that. What is it supposed to do?
> else {
> if (ip is the same ) {
> type = symmetric;
> } else {
> type = port restricted;
> }
I don't think we can do that. Since test 1A, 2, and 3 all are sent to
the same server's IP address/port, we'll always have the same
MAPPED-ADDRESS.
I think my proposal probably is about the only thing we can do.
Cheers
Benny
> }
> } else {
> Type=unknown (voodoo network)
> }
> }
> }
>
> But i would rather go for your proposal
>
> Cheers
> Alain
>
> --
> ""
> (o)(o)
> _____o00o__(__)__o00o_____
> 1024D/A9F85A52 2000-01-18 Alain Totouom <totouom at gmx.de>
> PGP FingerPrint DA180DF2 FBD25F67 0656452D E3A27531 A9F85A52
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org
>
> pjsip mailing list
> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org
> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org
>
