<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Alexandru Oniciuc <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Alexandru.Oniciuc@trivenet.it">Alexandru.Oniciuc@trivenet.it</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="IT"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear * users,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">in your opinion, when using a * as a public server, is good practice enabling nat=yes in sip.conf for all the peers?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Can anyone imagine a scenario when enabling this parameter (even for peers that don’t require it) can cause problems?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Regards and thanks in advance,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Alex</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p></div></div><br></blockquote><div><br>I asked this same exact question several years ago. There are many replies with different takes. I would skim through Alex's posts, there is really nothing worth reading except it will break the SIP RFC handed down by the internets themselves.<br>
<br>I use nat=yes all the time and it works just fine.<br><br><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/asterisk-users@lists.digium.com/msg213941.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/asterisk-users@lists.digium.com/msg213941.html</a><br>
<br>Nobody actually answered the question about the bad side, they just argued about the SIP RFC.<br><br>Many others agreed to make it default behavior and that setting nat=yes gives a an extra degree of security.<br><br>
RFCs are great and all, but in the real world, phones just need to work.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Steve Totaro<br> <br></div></div>