[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] Porta Software vs. AG Projects [open letter]

On Mar 25, 2004 at 09:04, Adrian Georgescu <ag(a)ag-projects.com> wrote: Ok. let's try to stick to the mediaproxy ser module. Most of the things you said above apply only to your media relay. BTW: nathelper is independent on the ser version, you can use the unstable cvs version with a stable ser cvs without any problems. The ser module resembles a lot nathelper in functionality. It has some extra features like usage of a list of user agent names to decide whether rtp is symmetric (nathelper uses a different approach, a flag in the force_rtp_proxy), decides whether sip is symmetric or not (again a list of UAs read from a file) and changes or not the port in Contact:. I think its main feature over nathelper is handling of multiple streams. Nathelper features not present in mediaproxy are ipv6 support, bridging mode, more ser config flexibility (like query only mode, good for re-INVITEs). mediaproxy also uses a different protocol to speak to its media relay. It includes domain names, all sdp streams info, user agent a.s.o. So you cannot say the mediaproxy module is not similar in functionality with nathelper. From my point of view there are only minor changes (like a lot more parameters send to the media relay). But even the way command are sent to it is the same (opening, connecting, writing and closing an unix stream socket each time a command is sent [which is not a very good ideea IMHO]). Let's concentrate on the module and whether or not this is a (C) infringement and how to solve this problem in an amiable way. Andrei