Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com:
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions should be exposed in the nathelper module. Why does mediaproxy get its own module? What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than far-end NAT traversal (for example, passive in-line tap / monitor-port based call recording)?
AFAIK NAT signalling functions are now handled by nat-traversal module, more powerful than nathelper of mediaproxy (for signalling, not for media). So nathelper module remains just to control RtpProxy. Yes, it could be renamed to "rtpproxy" and NAT signalling functions be dropped from the module.
Just what is the superior merit of nat-traversal vs. nathelper? I have continued to use nathelper, believing nat-traversal to be an artifice of the OpenSIPS camp since it was put out by AG Projects...