25 Aug
2005
25 Aug
'05
5:54 p.m.
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.
--
___________________________________________________
__
|- giannici(a)neomedia.it
|ederico Giannici http://www.neomedia.it
___________________________________________________
25 Aug
25 Aug
7:25 p.m.
Hi!
It should work with clients using not only STUN, but the whole ICE
algorithm.
btw: I analyzed google talk and they use somthing equal. The callee
detects if the caller behind the same NAT (same public IP) and then they
agree on local IP:port.
regards
klaus
Federico Giannici wrote:
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.
10:28 p.m.
As Klaus already mentioned, with clients which support ICE this should be no
problem any more.
If the clients do not support ICE, you could take a look on the MPO algorithm
from Jasomi.
Regards
Nils
On Thursday 25 August 2005 16:54, Federico Giannici wrote:
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.
10:42 p.m.
Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
As Klaus already mentioned, with clients which support
ICE this should be no
problem any more.
If the clients do not support ICE, you could take a look on the MPO algorithm
from Jasomi.
What is the "MPO algorithm from Jasomi"?
I couldn't find it on google (actually I found same MPO algorithms, but
none related to the network)...
Can you give me a link (if it wasn't a joke)?
Thanks.
On Thursday 25 August 2005 16:54, Federico Giannici
wrote:
--
___________________________________________________
__
|- giannici(a)neomedia.it
|ederico Giannici http://www.neomedia.it
___________________________________________________
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.
26 Aug
26 Aug
3:20 p.m.
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.
3:22 p.m.
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:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
8:14 p.m.
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 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:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
27 Aug
27 Aug
1:02 p.m.
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(a)pernau.at>
To: "Carlo" <c.maggiolini(a)elitel.it>
Cc: "Jiri Kuthan" <jiri(a)iptel.org>rg>; <serusers(a)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:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 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(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
26 Aug
26 Aug
5:16 p.m.
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
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.
Yes, I wasn't looking for "far end" (in the service provider) solutions,
but the "near end" seems appropriate...
Anyway, I was looking for a smaller solution, something for small
offices, from 2 to 10-20 phones.
Now I was asking myself if an Asterisk solution could work.
Can Asterisk work as a SIP proxy behind a NAT?
Does it have a STUN client?
Thanks.
At 02:20 PM 8/26/2005, Carlo wrote:
--
___________________________________________________
__
|- giannici(a)neomedia.it
|ederico Giannici http://www.neomedia.it
___________________________________________________
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:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
31 Aug
31 Aug
2:08 p.m.
On 8/26/05, Federico Giannici <giannici(a)neomedia.it> wrote:
Have a look at the Intertex SurfinBird IX67, I believe that it will do
what you need and is fairly low cost.
A.
--
Adam Sherman
Technologist
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.
Yes, I wasn't looking for "far end" (in the service provider) solutions,
but the "near end" seems appropriate...
Anyway, I was looking for a smaller solution, something for small
offices, from 2 to 10-20 phones.
7029
days inactive
7035
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Adam Sherman -
Carlo -
Federico Giannici -
Greger V. Teigre -
Jiri Kuthan -
Klaus Darilion -
Nils Ohlmeier