[asterisk-users] Why Nat=yes Nat=no Option?

[Klaus Darilion]

Alex Balashov schrieb:
> Steve Totaro wrote:
> 
>> Alex is going to cling to to the RFC as if it were the gospel, and not 
>> look at what would essentially be a "good thing".  
> 
> The RFC is not "the gospel," but nor is it just a "request for comment," 
> historical nomenclature aside.
> 
> It is the de facto standard for the implementation of the protocol, the 
> product of IETF working groups, various standards bodies, and private 
> and academic industry consortia.  It is essential for interoperability 
> and is the source of the justification for the appeal to "sameness" in 
> the claim that two elements or services speak the "same" protocol.
> 
> Inconsistencies, omissions, or deviations from the standard in 
> implementations do not materially undermine this point.  Nothing is 
> perfect, including the RFC itself, which is replete with ambiguities 
> open to interpretation and disagreements about those interpretations. 
> However, it does provide the anchor for essential adherence, especially 
> when it comes to points that are spelled out clearly (i.e. the basic 
> purpose and function of registration and contact bindings) as opposed to 
> more marginal scenarios.
> 
> Do I really have to explain why it is important to follow the RFC when 
> implementing an IETF protocol?

Of course we know that we should implement RFC conform. But RFC 3261 has 
ignored the fact that the Internet is full of NATs and standard conform 
implementations can not work. This in the case of SIP it necessary to 
break the RFC.

regards
klaus