You can't go too wrong with either one. They are very similar. In my case, the choice is based on the language used to implement it. One is in C and the other one is Python. I am only familiar with one. The choice is easy, so I can tweak it to fit my need.
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:00 AM To: Bruno Lopes F. Cabral; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] NAT
Great. I'll try it again.
Would still like to know which is the preferred method and which method can handle a higher load of concurrent callers.
Regards, Pual
--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" bruno@openline.com.br wrote:
Hello there
Java Rockx wrote:
Andrei, Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments correctly you're saying that either of these configurations work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy Option 2) Use mediaproxy
IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted "Option 1" because I used nothing more than the example ser.cfg that comes with the source distro.
I used the example config found at
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi- bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?rev=1.1.2.1
My results were not good because all client side firewalls required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the following UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
Grandstream ATA 486 Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
I also tested these two, and they passed here with nathelper/rtpproxy
Cheers !3runo
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers