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

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 07/07/2009 07:09 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/7/7 Henning Westerholt <henning.westerholt at 1und1.de>:
>   
>> if i remember correctly one of the original ideas behind the nat-traversal
>> module was to consolidate the helper functionality needed to support nat
>> traversal into one module, instead of having two more or less redundant
>> implementations in nathelper and mediaproxy modules. Not sure how the
>> current state of integration is at the moment.. I also think that a clear
>> separation of efforts would be a good thing.
>>
>> If i understand the module docs correctly then nat_traversal seems to
>> support better and/ or more efficient nat keep alive, among others. Its not
>> restricted to only ping users from location table, for example.
>>     
>
> I use nat-traversal module and it's MUCH MUCH more powerful than
> nathelper, for sure.
>   
I do not agree at all with this, when comes to flexibility. 
nat_traversal main problem is the relying on dialog module, which adds 
lot of overhead to a proxy.

For presence, like for registration, the keepalive should be done by the 
endpoint (registrar, presence server), otherwise you get into 
scalability issues.

Cheers,
Daniel

> It allows NAT keepalive for non registered users when they are in a
> INVITE or SUBSCRIBE dialog.
>
> Alex, please, take a look to nat-traversal full documentation.
>
>
>   

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/