[Kamailio-Users] [SR-Users] force_rtp_proxy() vis-a-vis BYE

[Alex Balashov]

Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/7/7 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>:
>> I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions should
>> be exposed in the nathelper module.  Why does mediaproxy get its own module?
>>  What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than far-end NAT
>> traversal (for example, passive in-line tap / monitor-port based call
>> recording)?
> 
> AFAIK NAT signalling functions are now handled by nat-traversal
> module, more powerful than nathelper of mediaproxy (for signalling,
> not for media).
> So nathelper module remains just to control RtpProxy. Yes, it could be
> renamed to "rtpproxy" and NAT signalling functions be dropped from the
> module.
> 

Just what is the superior merit of nat-traversal vs. nathelper?  I have 
continued to use nathelper, believing nat-traversal to be an artifice of 
the OpenSIPS camp since it was put out by AG Projects...

-- 
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775