[asterisk-dev] STUN support in chan_sip revisited

[Simon Perreault]

On 2010-08-09 09:28, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>> and the proxy (service provider) should do NAT traversal.
>>
>> No. In this discussion, I only care about Asterisk.  It would be futile
>> to impose constraints on the service provider.
> 
> Not explicit but implicit. If Asterisk is behind NAT and it does not do 
> any NAT traversal (because the proxy does not support RFC5626) then this 
> implies that the proxy has to do the NAT traversal or it wont work.

Yes, absolutely. The service provider has to support either standard NAT
traversal (i.e. RFC 5626) or do some sort of non-standard NAT traversal
if it has any expectation of working with clients that are behind NATs.
This is true in any situation, not only with Asterisk.

Simon
-- 
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server        --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0               --> http://www.vcarddav.org