8 Jul
2009
8 Jul
'09
9:35 a.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla schrieb:
On 07/07/2009 08:33 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
I think the concept of nat_traversal correctly is focused on using
outbound proxies - e.g. you have several outbound proxies (multiple SRV
or A records) which relay the signaling to the core proxies (registrars,
presence servers ...).
In such a setup there is no need for PATH support as the nat_traversal
will be done on the outbound proxy. Further, scalability is also not a
problem. Of course multiple OBPs will be needed for availability and NAT
traversal load (including media relay) - but this reduces load on the
core proxies which do not have to deal with NAT traversal.
It just probably a matter of preference if you have multiple
registrars/presence servers which also do NAT traversal and activation
of media relay, or if you prefer to have OBPs which deal with all the
NAT traversal issues and keep the core proxies simple.
regards
klaus
El Martes, 7 de Julio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla escribió:
so it duplicated info stored by the usrloc module. It is what I meant by
keeping twice information. Nathelper fetches the contact details from
usrloc.
From what seems here, definitely does not deal with PATH extension. On 07/07/2009 07:27 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo
wrote:
--------
REGISTER - called before save_location() or t_relay() (depending on
whether the proxy that received the REGISTER is also handling
registration for that subscriber or not). It will determine from
either the stateless reply generated by save_location() or the TM
relayed reply if the registration was successful and what is its
expiration time. If the registration was successful it will mark the
given NAT endpoint for keepalive for the registration condition using
the detected expiration time. If the REGISTER request is discarded
after nat_keepalive() was called or if it intercepts a negative reply
it will have no effect and the registration condition will not be
activated for that endpoint.
--------
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> I use nat-traversal module and it's MUCH MUCH more powerful than
>> nathelper, for sure.
>>
> I do not agree at all with this, when comes to flexibility.
> nat_traversal main problem is the relying on dialog module, which adds
> lot of overhead to a proxy.
>
Not sure now if dialog module is fully required for all the cases...
It's just required if you want to mantain nat keepalive for calls
initiated by non registered users.
it does not bind to usrloc, so I think it has no idea who is registered
or not, unless it is done via some parameters.