I don't think that's entirely fair. We've seen deployments of rtpproxy with several thousand streams (compared to a few dozen on mediaproxy). The biggest problem, of course, becomes that then you're into the gigabits of bandwidth realm.... which gets pricey. The biggest differences between mediaproxy and rtpproxy: mediaproxy: -written in python -uses DNS srv records to allow you to distribute the load onto multuple servers regionally, geographically, etc. -has a nifty web interface to let you look at statistics of the server (ongoing streams, etc). -can't handle a WHOLE lot of streams per box rtpproxy: -written in C -doesn't handle distribution of load (for this, you'd need to do some tricks with load balancing on your own -- local, or geographical load balancing. Not easy, but possible). -doesn't have any sort of useful interface to gather information about the server and what it's doing -handles a LOT of streams on a decently-powered box There are limits to both, of course. You're best off limiting the number of users who require the use of mediaproxy or rtpproxy with some effective coding and standards (in reality, the ONLY people who should be using it are people who are connecting via a symmetric NAT) to avoid bottlenecks. Like ANY thing else in the massive deployment world, there is always a bottleneck in any SIP scenario, but also like any other massive deployment, you need to analyse your particular environment and decide what works best for you to minimise the bottlenecks using good network design, not just good software. N. * On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:26:57 -0400, Script Head wrote* both aren't truly fit for the job and consume too much CPU to be useful on large scale. <mailto:vijay11tiwari@yahoo.com>> wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40791/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta> to try the new Yahoo! Mail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

olivier.taylor wrote: * 2005-02-24 Added support for using more than one rtp proxy, in which * case traffic will be distributed evenly among them. In addition, * each such proxy can be assigned a weight, which will specify * which share of the traffic should be placed to this particular * proxy. * * Introduce failover mechanism, so that if SER detects that one * of many proxies is no longer available it temporarily decreases * its weight to 0, so that no traffic will be assigned to it. * Such "disabled" proxies are periodically checked to see if they * are back to normal in which case respective weight is restored * resulting in traffic being sent to that proxy again. * * Those features can be enabled by specifying more than one "URI" * in the rtpproxy_sock parameter, optionally followed by the weight, * which if absent is assumed to be 1, for example: * * rtpproxy_sock="unix:/foo/bar=4 udp:1.2.3.4:3456=3 udp:5.6.7.8:5432=1" This has been available for over a year now. -- Andres Technical Support http://www.telesip.net _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers