[Serusers] Symmetric NATs and RTP Proxy - Question

[Darren Sessions]

I sent the email to the mailing list and realized the answer about 15
minutes afterwards. Your email Jan, confirms it.

I had discussed session border controllers with Jiri many months ago and was
told a session border controller was not a good approach as they severely
complicate signaling matters.

Other than using a session border controller, are there any viable solutions
to this problem without resorting to a IP failover cluster or something of
that nature?

Thanks,

- Darren


On 2/8/05 5:49 PM, "Jan Janak" <jan at iptel.org> wrote:

> No, because RTP proxy would relay media only. SIP signalling would still
> go through one of the proxy servers and SIP messages would only make it
> to the user agent behind symmetric NAT if they were sent by the proxy
> server originally contacted by the user agent (with the same IP address).
> 
>   Jan.
> 
> On 08-02 13:19, Darren Sessions wrote:
>> We currently do not use an RTP proxy in our service (so the audio does not
>> ride our internet bandwidth).
>> 
>> Our biggest issue at the moment is the redundancy between two SER servers in
>> dealing with symmetric NATs (specifically dealing with the individual SER
>> server unique IP addresses and the far end customer's symmetric NAT).
>> 
>> If we were to use an RTP proxy, as a backup mechanism for dealing with NATs,
>> would this alleviate the issue of multiple SER servers and symmetric NATs?
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers