Re: [SR-Users] question about nat_uac_test

On 07.01.2014 16:54, Brian Davis wrote: The other interesting issue in this case is that the 192.xx.xxx.xxx address is not an RFC1918 address, but it is also not reachable from I should have known that if it is an RFC1918 address, you would not have to mask it. kamailio. That is why I h

Re: [SR-Users] question about nat_uac_test

The other interesting issue in this case is that the 192.xx.xxx.xxx address is not an RFC1918 address, but it is also not reachable from kamailio. That is why I hoped kamailio would trigger NAT traversal logic solely on the fact that the source and contact address are different. On Tue, Jan 7, 20

Re: [SR-Users] question about nat_uac_test

On 03.01.2014 16:59, Brian Davis wrote: REGISTER sip:test1.test.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 96.xxx.xxx.xxx:33745;rport;branch=z9hG4bKf5s1p`n3TRv5TZx5RXy.RVv+JPz8Nat*UX!8KRx4SRx Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.xx.xxx.xxx:33745;branch=z9hG4bKeb263246c44095f072d8167dd0c7

[SR-Users] question about nat_uac_test

When using nat_uac_test("3"), there is a particular REGISTER message that my kamailio server receives where the source and via addresses are different, but this function seems to return false (and then no nat correction is applied). I have included the register message below. Is there an obvious