[Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk

[Iqbal]

Yup, I looked at siproxd sometime back, and for a mixed solution where 
you wish to deal with corporate with strange (not cooperative ) 
networks, it is good, but as mentioned below, scalability I am not too 
sure about

Iqbal

Greger V. Teigre wrote:

> IMHO, siproxd is not suited for a far-end NAT traversal scenario and 
> certainly not capable of scaling if you have a large user community. 
> It is suitable (and made) as a way to simplify traversal through 
> firewalls in the corporate network and can be used standalone to 
> handle mydomain.com calls (company internal and email-based calls). 
> With ser, I assume it can be used to move the NAT issue from centrally 
> managed closer to the user community.  It may make sense to in some 
> scenarios if the corporation is not ready to upgrade the FW to one 
> with SIP ALG or upon up lots of ports. 
> Summary:
> - If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation), 
> siproxd should do fine
> - If you provide services to the corporation and the ser is on the 
> outside, it should be installed on a case by case basis (some FWs have 
> SIP ALG already)
> - If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind 
> corporate FWs, forget about siproxd
>  
> g-)
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* jeff kwong <mailto:kwongfucius at gmail.com>
>     *To:* Serusers <mailto:serusers at lists.iptel.org>
>     *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2005 06:58 AM
>     *Subject:* [Serusers] ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk
>
>     Hi Guys!
>
>     I just would like to share that I was able to get a working setup
>     using SER as Softswitch, Asterisk as PSTN gateway and SIPROXD on
>     my NAT Router. SIPROXD is an open source ALG and it effectively
>     handles sip nat traversals. With it I dont have to run a seperate
>     mediaproxy. When making calls from SIP UA to PSTN, RTP is as below:
>
>     UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK
>
>     for 2 UA behind the same NAT:
>
>     UA1--NAT---UA2
>
>     and for 2 UA behind different NATs:
>
>     UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2
>
>     Thus there is less latency on signals and less traffic on SER. My
>     question is, from the experience of other guys here, what do you
>     think is the drawback or advantages of using SIPROXD together with
>     SER to solve SIP NAT issues compared to other methods like using
>     mediaproxy and rtpproxy?Will I still be able to do other SER
>     features like accounting?
>
>
>     Thanks!
>     _jeff
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     _______________________________________________
>     Serusers mailing list
>     serusers at lists.iptel.org
>     http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>  
>