Hi Gustavo, You can set UDP connection between SER and RTPROXY if you want to have it on a different machine. Anyhow, I would say it's a little bit dangerous if the IP distance between is big, since the protocol used to control RTPPROXY wasn't design for this case. But you can give it a try :-) Best regards, Marian Gustavo Villegas wrote: > dear users > can i get the RTPPROXY runing in another PC, maybe in a CO-located > PC in another country. > all for the expensive cost of internet in mine. > or maybe i need to move all , the server and the rtpproxy module to > another PC ??? > if yes, how can be done ?? > some examples will be apreciates. > Regards > > Gustavo Villegas > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Hi Greger, Indeed, with your scenario you solve the biggest problem of a remote rtpproxy, which is reliability, by using an ipsec tunnel. So, if I get it right, you use a private address for control communication and a public one for the media relaying. If so, why don't you just do : rtpproxy -s udp:private_ip -l public_ip Best regards, Marian Greger V. Teigre wrote: > We run ser on a server in one hosting center and we have the rtpproxy > located locally where subscribers are. All ser-rtpproxy > communications are run inside an ipsec tunnel using udp. Both for > security reasons and stability, I recommend using ipsec. We have > experienced no problems whatsoever with this setup. > > This is the nathelper setup: > modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "udp:10.192.0.5:22222") > > Note that 10.192.0.5 is the private address of the server running the > rtpproxy and you must start up rtpproxy to listen to UDP (rtpproxy -l > 10.192.0.5 -s udp:*). > You can of course also configure the ipsec tunnel on > each side to route traffic to the other server's public address > through the ipsec tunnel and thus avoid using private addresses. However, > if you do use > a private address (a more typical ipsec scenario), you need to tell > rtpproxy > which public IP address to use when rewriting SDP (10.192.0.5 would > normally > be used). I have submitted (to this list) a patch for rtpproxy > where you can specify the public address on rtpproxy's command line. > I have also sent > the patch to Maxim. I have seen that he is preparing several updates > to nathelper and rtpproxy now, and I hope he will include my patch > also. With the patch you start rtpproxy with: -l 10.192.0.5 -i public_ip > -s udp:* g-) > > Marian Dumitru wrote: > >> Hi Gustavo, >> >> You can set UDP connection between SER and RTPROXY if you want to >> have it on a different machine. Anyhow, I would say it's a little >> bit dangerous if the IP distance between is big, since the protocol >> used to control RTPPROXY wasn't design for this case. But you can >> give it a try :-) >> Best regards, >> Marian >> >> Gustavo Villegas wrote: >> >>> dear users >>> can i get the RTPPROXY runing in another PC, maybe in a CO-located >>> PC in another country. >>> all for the expensive cost of internet in mine. >>> or maybe i need to move all , the server and the rtpproxy module to >>> another PC ??? >>> if yes, how can be done ?? >>> some examples will be apreciates. >>> Regards >>> >>> Gustavo Villegas >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Serusers mailing list >>> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers