7 Jul
2009
7 Jul
'09
7:48 p.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Alex Balashov
<abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>om>:
Just what is the superior merit of nat-traversal vs. nathelper? I have
continued to use nathelper, believing nat-traversal to be an artifice of
the OpenSIPS camp since it was put out by AG Projects...
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
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.