[Serusers] HELP me: Confuse between mediaproxy and STUN

Charles Wang lazy.charles at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 15:58:51 CET 2005


Yes, I use STUN client on my UACs and build a mediaproxy on my SER in
order to solve these conditions.


On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:01:48 +0100, Marian Dumitru
<marian.dumitru at voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
> 
> Indeed, in real world scenarios, to be able to cop with all types of
> NATs in the most efficient way, you need to use a combination of server
> and client NAT traversal.
> 
> Best regards,
> Marian
> 
> Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> > That's actually not true -- STUN clients fail to traverse symmetric NAT
> > (see RFC3489) without a media proxy.
> >
> > -jiri
> >
> > At 08:08 PM 3/22/2005, Marian Dumitru wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Charles,
> >>
> >>It's correct, if _all_ clients use STUN (and a correct implementation) you don't need mediaproxy or nathelper.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Marian
> >>
> >>Charles Wang wrote:
> >>
> >>>Marian,
> >>>Thank you very much for your explain. So, if a client side with STUN support and setting it correctly, is it
> >>>not necessary
> >>>to use media proxy(outboumd proxy setting)? If yes, my clients with
> >>>STUN should
> >>>can talk to each other without setting outbound proxy.
> >>>But in fact, I test this with two X-Pro running on two NATed PCs. I
> >>>find out they are always send its RTP to my SER not send to each other
> >>>directly. So it will add my SER's loading. Can you tell me how to
> >>>change my ser.cfg to avoid such condiction? Please....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:26:35 +0100, Marian Dumitru
> >>><marian.dumitru at voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hello Charles,
> >>>>
> >>>>Just to give you the big picture about NAT traversal mechanisms:
> >>>>
> >>>>STUN is used to perform the NAT traversal on the client side - the UAC
> >>>>is NAT aware (via STUN) and sends SIP messages using the public IP. From
> >>>>server side, the UAC will look like a public one, so there no logic
> >>>>required on server for this case.
> >>>>
> >>>>nathelper and mediaproxy are rather equivalent and implement NAT
> >>>>traversal on server side - UAC has nothing to know about NAT and send
> >>>>messages with private IP. The server takes care about detecting a
> >>>>correcting messages coming from behind a NAT.
> >>>>
> >>>>Best regards
> >>>>Marian
> >>>>
> >>>>Charles Wang wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi, ALL:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I can't not make sure my view point between STUN and mediaproxy.
> >>>>>Please explain for me.
> >>>>>In my view, if NATed UACs want to make a call,
> >>>>>the solutions shall be nathelper, mediaproxy or building a STUN server.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If NATed UACs set their own STUN server's IP correctly,
> >>>>>and they want to talk with each other will be in a "direct"
> >>>>>(RTP will not pass through SER) mode, is it correct? And the STUN server
> >>>>>will tell our UACs what's their NAT gateway's IP(behind what kind
> >>>>>of network environment , and UACs will send these informations to SER?
> >>>>>In another word, it is not necessary to use media proxy to pass their
> >>>>>RTP channel?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If it is correctly, so we will not to set any mediaproxy daemon for
> >>>>>them, is it correct?
> >>>>>If it is not, can anyone tell me why it is not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If ignore the STUN issue, I use the mediaproxy's ser.cfg as my template ser.cfg.
> >>>>>But I find all UACs's RTP packages will pass through my SER wether
> >>>>>behind NAT or not( read IPs ). How can I modify my ser.cfg and make a
> >>>>>call directly without pass through SER if two UACs are all real IPs?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Voice System
> >>>>http://www.voice-system.ro
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Voice System
> >>http://www.voice-system.ro
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> 
> --
> Voice System
> http://www.voice-system.ro
> 


-- 

Best Regards
Charles




More information about the sr-users mailing list