[Serusers] NAT Traversal using nathelper module

[Ladislav Andel]

The CVS version is step ahead.

O. wrote:
> thanks for the clarification. it looks like SER0.9.6 is step ahead or we
> have to deal with the extra traffic.
>
> thanks,
> O.  
>
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 10:45 +0200, Ladislav Andel wrote:
>   
>> Unfortunately, up to version 0.9.6 SER doesn't know if the public client 
>> supports symmetric RTP and active/passive direction attribute. So SER 
>> will make sure that both clients can hear each other (both way RTP 
>> stream between clients) and involves RTP proxy. On the other hand, 
>> clients behind NAT  has  to  support  symmetric RTP because they would 
>> not work behind NAT.
>>
>> So you have two options:
>> 1) Not use rtpproxy at all in your ser.cfg and then you have to now that 
>> your clients support symmetric RTP
>> But if you have two clients behind then it would not work.
>> 2) Use RTPproxy even if one client is behind NAT.. This will work with 
>> all scenarios.
>>
>> Ladislav
>>
>> O. wrote:
>>     
>>> thanks, so we have to keep the proxy.
>>> In this case when one of the client will be behind nat does the proxy
>>> will transfer the RTP? or still the the RTP will be route without proxy
>>> involved?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> O. 
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 23:57 +0200, Ladislav Andel wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Hi O.,
>>>> This will work only with one NAT involved in SIP dialog. If you have 
>>>> both clients behind NAT then RTPproxy or Mediaproxy is necessary. Also, 
>>>> your clients has to support active/passive direction attribute and be 
>>>> able to read source IP:port address from the first RTP packet received.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ladislav
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> O. wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Kostas and samuel,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case you are describing, using nathelper will replace the
>>>>> rtpproxy or medianproxy? It looks to me that in this case the rtp will
>>>>> be route in between the sip client, without any proxy. In the
>>>>> configuration you mentioned the ser is on public IP?     
>>>>> if this is the case it looks much better the proxy from the load
>>>>> prospective.   
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks, 
>>>>> O.
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>     
>
>
>
>