Also, many NATs can handle hairpin media quite well. I think there is an RFC with a list of tested NATs. Another suggested solution is to test caller's and callee's public IPs and not force proxy if they match (you need to know that the internal NAT is routable and non-NATed for this to work). g-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Klaus Darilion" klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at To: "Carlo" c.maggiolini@elitel.it Cc: "Jiri Kuthan" jiri@iptel.org; serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 07:14 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Hairpin solutions?
Carlo wrote:
maybe you are right but I can see that FWD is using Jasomi SBC to solve nat problems.
There are also other SIP provider than FWD ;-)
klaus
http://lite.fwdnet.net/index.php?section_id=78
Carlo
Jiri Kuthan ha scritto:
beg my pardon, but I don't really think that one needs a session border control, particularly becasue of the reasons related to bad scalability, bandwidth waste and latency. Sinle point of failure is another concern.
-jiri
At 02:20 PM 8/26/2005, Carlo wrote:
What you need is a session border control. Try this link from Jasomi : http://www.jasomi.com/ppfes.html or this from Kagoor ( now Juniper ) http://www.juniper.net/customers/support/products/vf1000.jsp
Federico Giannici ha scritto:
Considering that we DON'T want to use an RTP Proxy (bad scalability, waste of bandwidth and longer delays), is there any solution to the "hairpin" problems?
Are there any "boxes" that look at the SIP messages and short-circuit calls from and to the local network?
Thanks.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers