[Serdev] SER's core design features(process model/parser/lumps/script) - was: So who/what is SER for, anyway?

[Klaus Darilion]

Martin Hoffmann wrote:

>> Also the whole NAT traversal. This should be handled globally too, e.g.
>>
>> perform_nat_traversal=no/always/ifneeded (this of course automatically 
>> activates the rtp proxy - no need to check for replies with 183/200 - no 
>> need to check for reINVITEs, ...)
> 
> So your NAT traversal strategy is the same as mine? I do have a couple
> of special things which I can only do because the script allows me to do
> whatever I want.

I do also have a couple of special things because the config forces me 
to do it :-(

>> Thus, there is lots of potential to make ser more user friendly. The 
>> above examples do not have any performance impact, but prevents users 
>> from having lots of bugs in their message handling and NAT traversal).
>>
>> I already can year you crying that we will loose all the flexibility 
>> when doing this - but in the end we will have a very flexible SIP proxy 
>> which will be used by geeks and there will be not so flexible SIP 
>> proxies (asterisk, repro ...) which will be used by admins without a PhD 
>> in SIP.
> 
> Yes. And now please explain what is wrong with this. I need a proxy that
> suits my needs as a large ITSP. I really don't care about a twenty
> people office. If "my" proxy can be used by them as well, fine. But I do
> not see why I should use an inferior product just to please some people
> for whom there already are perfectly fine alternatives.
>
> That's just my sixteen øre as someone who gets all the strange
> interoperability problems on his desk and needs fix them. Ultimately,

I also hade some bug reports just to find out that other commercial ITSP 
have a buggy NAT traversal thus calls from my domain to to other ITSP 
wont work. I suspect that most configs have a bug somewhere (mine too).

regards
klaus

-- 
Klaus Darilion
nic.at