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

[Klaus Darilion]

Alex Balashov schrieb:
> 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...

It was developed by AG while they where still working with Kamailio. 
Then there was the fork. I think new features and bugfixes are now only 
with OpenSIPs (I think they also did some changes to dialog module for 
nat_traversal reasons).

regards
klaus