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

[Klaus Darilion]

Alex Balashov schrieb:
> Klaus Darilion wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> By default?
> 
> NAT itself is a hack;  therefore, I would think that NAT traversal 
> assistance should be enabled when NAT is used.  Why would we presume NAT 
> and implement behaviour that is only desirable under NAT as a default?

Because NAT is the default. At least in Austria - most customers get a 
NAT router with their DSL Account.

klaus