25 Oct
2012
25 Oct
'12
5:39 p.m.
On 25.10.2012 16:27, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Klaus Darilion writes:
There are pro's and cons. For example in a Asterisk-based hosted PBX
setup I always terminate RTP streams on the Asterisk server (also for
legal reasons) and Kamailio is used only as border element/load
balancer. Thus, there is no need for an RTP proxy. Same applies if the
service is mostly a POTS replacement service (most calls are SIP-PSTN
calls, only a few SIP-SIP calls) then I do not care about optimization
and relay also RTP stream of SIP-SIP calls via the Asterisk server ->
thus no need for rtpproxy.
In scenarios with lots of SIP-SIP calls between the users and without
PBX features I use only Kamailio with rtpproxy but treat every user as
NATed user (pragmatic approach). And back to your question - in setups
where CPU is not a limiting factor (ie Asterisk could be used too) I use
Kamailio only as border element for filtering and header manipulation
(to deal with broken clients).
But as already said, different scenarios probably requires different
handling.
regards
Klaus
Is it really worth differing between nated and
non-nated clients?
yes, because operator of sip proxy would save in hardware costs.
In my setup I always treat every user as natted
user - this makes the
config much more simpler. But I haven't had projects with huge user
bases where capacity on the rtpproxy and IP traffic was an issue.
does that mean that every call is using mediaproxy? if so, what is the
advantage of sip proxy to, say, asterisk?