Having used both rtpproxy and mediaproxy for quite sometime, here's my bits -
(NOTE - I used rtpproxy a few months back - and a few changes might have occured during
these few months - so some of my comments may be inaccurate).
1. When I used rtporoxy a few months back, it would not allow chaining two or more
rtpproxies and I had to hack the code to make it work that way. To me this is a very
important feature. If you are talking of a telco grade VoIP product, having control over
the RTP stream is very very important - legal interception for example (I am sure one day
our regulatory bodies or the government will force some requirement on this), prevent
terminating SIP session and yet continuing the RTP session, privacy etc. And the only way
you can have control over the RTP stream is by forcing it go via your rtpproxy/mediaproxy.
So I think rtpproxy/mediaproxy has a purpose beyond the nathelper functionality.
Mediaproxy can do that already. I am not sure of what changes have happened since I last
used rtpproxy - but if this feature is still missing, it will be great to have this
feature included.
2. Loadbalancing is important - particularly if you are thinking of proxing hundreds of
calls at any instant. Mediaproxy gives this feature. I would like to see this in
rtpproxy.
3. While using rtpproxy, when you terminate a call, SER does not send a message to the
rtpproxy to terminate the rtp-stream associated with that call. Rather, rtpproxy sits
there waiting and eventually times out. This is not good - there should be a tighter
control.
4. rtpproxy is written in C. I like it - maybe because I am a bit more familiar with C.
mediaproxy is written in python, and that makes me a bit uncomfortable about performance
issues - although I have seen some earlier posting saying that the performance difference
isn't much. But I can't say much on this until I do my own testing.
Dhiraj Bhuyan
Network Security Specialist,
BT Exact Business Assurance Solutions
Tel: +44 1473 643932
Mob: +44 7962 012145
Email: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Atle Samuelsen
Sent: 23 July 2004 07:21
To: Gustavo Russo
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [Serusers] mediaproxy <-> rtpproxy
Both work :-)
- Atle
* Gustavo Russo <grusso(a)netex.com.ar> [040723 01:15]:
Arne :
Several times many people on this list and once myself too, made a similar
question, in every case nobody answered.
It seems that due to the copyright discussion between nathelper and
mediaproxy, many listers are afraid of beginning a flame war by comparing
the two.
Regards,
Gustavo Russo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arne Scheffer" <arne.scheffer(a)ritstele.com>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: [Serusers] mediaproxy <-> rtpproxy
Hello all,
Can anyone give an indication of what direction the project is moving with
mediaproxy and rtpproxy ?
From the mediaproxy readme I understand the
advantages of being able to
have multiple mediaproxies.
(sonds good)
On the mailing list I have found limited questions on the mediaproxy so I
get the impression it is not being used a lot (yet) ?
I have installed it on a box with the latest CVS head.
I am experencing may problems with diffent NAT types, some work (eg e-tech
ADSL modem with NAT) but others don't (linux debian with iptables).
What is the most compatible solution at present ?
thanks in advance,
Arne.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers