15 Dec
2006
15 Dec
'06
5:06 p.m.
Maybe the right solution would be to have three modules (new names):
- mediaproxycontroller
- rtpproxycontroller
- natclienthelper
for a mediaproxy solution one would need two modules:
- mediaproxycontroller
- natclienthelper
for an rtpproxy solution one would need two modules:
- rtpproxycontroller
- natclienthelper
Like this, the nat detection would be in one single place
(natclienthelper module).
Memory utilization would benefit from this splitting: load only what you need.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On 12/15/06, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
Andreas Granig wrote:
--
Klaus Darilion
nic.at
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Makes sense. I use mediaproxy for RTP proxy, but nathelper for
fix_nated.....
regards
klaus
I would say yes...maybe adding 16 for safety
reasons ;).
Good idea, but I was just looking at client_nat_test of mediaproxy
module, not nat_uac_test of nathelper.
To avoid confusions like that, I'd generally propose to rip out the
nat-traversal stuff (client_nat_test, fix_contact) from mediaproxy,
because it does exactly the same as the corresponding nathelper
functions (nat_uac_test and fix_nated_contact). I don't see the point of
having redundant code here. what about "intelligent" ALGs on the
path?
As noted before, customers are strongly advised not to use any. I guess,
you all know why ;o)
And there's no other point on the path where an ALG not under customer's
or our control could be placed in this specific deployment.
Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users