9 Feb
2005
9 Feb
'05
4:51 a.m.
I sent the email to the mailing list and realized the answer about 15
minutes afterwards. Your email Jan, confirms it.
I had discussed session border controllers with Jiri many months ago and was
told a session border controller was not a good approach as they severely
complicate signaling matters.
Other than using a session border controller, are there any viable solutions
to this problem without resorting to a IP failover cluster or something of
that nature?
Thanks,
- Darren
On 2/8/05 5:49 PM, "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org> wrote:
No, because RTP proxy would relay media only. SIP
signalling would still
go through one of the proxy servers and SIP messages would only make it
to the user agent behind symmetric NAT if they were sent by the proxy
server originally contacted by the user agent (with the same IP address).
Jan.
On 08-02 13:19, Darren Sessions wrote:
> We currently do not use an RTP proxy in our service (so the audio does not
> ride our internet bandwidth).
>
> Our biggest issue at the moment is the redundancy between two SER servers in
> dealing with symmetric NATs (specifically dealing with the individual SER
> server unique IP addresses and the far end customer's symmetric NAT).
>
> If we were to use an RTP proxy, as a backup mechanism for dealing with NATs,
> would this alleviate the issue of multiple SER servers and symmetric NATs?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers