On 25.10.2012 16:27, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Klaus Darilion writes:
Is it really worth differing between nated and non-nated clients?
yes, because operator of sip proxy would save in hardware costs.
In my setup I always treat every user as natted user - this makes the config much more simpler. But I haven't had projects with huge user bases where capacity on the rtpproxy and IP traffic was an issue.
does that mean that every call is using mediaproxy? if so, what is the advantage of sip proxy to, say, asterisk?
There are pro's and cons. For example in a Asterisk-based hosted PBX setup I always terminate RTP streams on the Asterisk server (also for legal reasons) and Kamailio is used only as border element/load balancer. Thus, there is no need for an RTP proxy. Same applies if the service is mostly a POTS replacement service (most calls are SIP-PSTN calls, only a few SIP-SIP calls) then I do not care about optimization and relay also RTP stream of SIP-SIP calls via the Asterisk server -> thus no need for rtpproxy.
In scenarios with lots of SIP-SIP calls between the users and without PBX features I use only Kamailio with rtpproxy but treat every user as NATed user (pragmatic approach). And back to your question - in setups where CPU is not a limiting factor (ie Asterisk could be used too) I use Kamailio only as border element for filtering and header manipulation (to deal with broken clients).
But as already said, different scenarios probably requires different handling.
regards Klaus