7 Jul
2009
7 Jul
'09
7:41 p.m.
2009/7/7 Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>om>:
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control
socket functions should
be exposed in the nathelper module. Why does mediaproxy get its own module?
What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than far-end NAT
traversal (for example, passive in-line tap / monitor-port based call
recording)?
AFAIK NAT signalling functions are now handled by nat-traversal
module, more powerful than nathelper of mediaproxy (for signalling,
not for media).
So nathelper module remains just to control RtpProxy. Yes, it could be
renamed to "rtpproxy" and NAT signalling functions be dropped from the
module.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>