Hi Darren,
Disregarding any implementation aspects, the only complication a SBC can introduce is an additional hop in the signaling path. On the other hand, the SBC comes into focus when is about: -decoupling the NAT traversal from the routing logic - in case of a very complex service and routing logic or when is about considerations like yours; - distributed NAT traversal - keeping the media as local as possible in platforms with a wide-geographical coverage.
Best regards, Marian
Darren Sessions wrote:
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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers