Yeah. Getting SER to do simple NAT Traversal on the signaling side is easy. It will fix the contact addresses and make sure things like "BYE" which may come from remote land up to your UA (which only works if it fixes the Contact). Before I lead you down that path, you also need to figure out what you need to do for media nat traversal. There are several options here: use STUN/ICE combo - this will work based on what you are doing. You can also use things like rtpproxy and mediaproxy modules with SER. A third alternative is applicable when you are routing calls to a PSTN partner where you can use the partner's capabilities to traverse NATs. That traversal technique only works for the PSTN calls. So if you have UA to UA calling going on, you need one of the first two alternatives. I have worse suggestions if none of these alternatives make sense to you :). I'd rather not bother everyone on the list. Checkout some recent posts I made on http://turngeek.blogspot.com/ On Jan 29, 2008 5:19 AM, Philippe <philippe.leuba at eyepmedia.com> wrote: > Hi Medhavi, > > > > I don't know anything about SER but I thought that it was able to handle > NAT traversal itself. > > > > I don't want to enable STUN in this case. > > > > Is there a possibility in SER to control the modification of the Contact > header sent in the response? > > > > Philippe > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org [mailto: > pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org] *On Behalf Of *Medhavi Bhatia > *Sent:* lundi, 28. janvier 2008 17:47 > *To:* pjsip list > *Cc:* pjsip at pjsip.org > *Subject:* Re: [pjsip] SER compatibility > > > > Do you have nat traversal or contact fixing turned on on your SER? > > This may be fine and may not affect any features since SER may be storing > the "fixed contact". If you don't like any of this, then use STUN with > pjsip. > > We know for a fact that SER and OpenSER work perfectly fine with pjsip. In > fact better than with other SIP stacks! > > On Jan 28, 2008 10:49 AM, Philippe <philippe.leuba at eyepmedia.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We discovered that PJ stack is not compatible with SER. This is may be > caused by the changes done in the bug fix #371. > > > > This is due to the fact that SER do not provide the same contact in the > response that in the REGISTER: > > > > REGISTER sip:proxy01.sipphone.com;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.41:1637 > ;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPjbbd860b613154a5eaa9fabf99c1c3ace > > Contact: <sip:17472769426 at 192.168.1.41:1637;transport=UDP> > > ? > > > > > > SIP/2.0 200 OK > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.41:1637 > ;rport=7912;branch=z9hG4bKPjbbd860b613154a5eaa9fabf99c1c3ace;received= > 81.63.143.178 > > Contact: <sip:17472769426 at 81.63.143.178:7912;transport=UDP>;expires=1800 > > ? > > > > > > I agree that the SER behavior is not standard. > > > > What can be do to solve the issue? > > > > Philippe Leuba > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Medhavi Bhatia > > CTO, 3CLogic > www.3clogic.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Medhavi Bhatia CTO, 3CLogic www.3clogic.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20080129/0e29986a/attachment.html
