11 Feb
2005
11 Feb
'05
12:49 a.m.
There is a recent discussion about SBCs on the sip forum mailing list.
shortly, sbcs are a technique to harm QoS through bandwidth consumption
and packet latency, and to affect reliability through introduction
of a single point of failure. There are also extensibility concerns.
One can still achieve NAT traversal and failover capability without
SBCs. Which is not a blank statement -- my company, iptelorg, has developed
such product recently.
-jiri
At 11:41 PM 2/10/2005, Marian Dumitru wrote:
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:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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(a)iptel.org> wrote:
--
Voice System
http://www.voice-system.ro
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 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(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers