<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>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). </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV>Summary:</DIV>
<DIV>- If you are on the inside of the FW (i.e. you are the corporation),
siproxd should do fine</DIV>
<DIV>- 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)</DIV>
<DIV>- If you provide single user services and they happen to be behind
corporate FWs, forget about siproxd</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>g-)</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kwongfucius@gmail.com href="mailto:kwongfucius@gmail.com">jeff
kwong</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=serusers@lists.iptel.org
href="mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org">Serusers</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 02, 2005 06:58
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Serusers]
ser+nat+siproxd+asterisk</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi Guys!<BR><BR>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:<BR><BR>UA---NAT/SIPROXD---ASTERISK<BR><BR>for 2 UA behind the same
NAT:<BR><BR>UA1--NAT---UA2<BR><BR>and for 2 UA behind different
NATs:<BR><BR>UA1--NAT1----NAT2---UA2<BR><BR>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?<BR clear=all><BR><BR>Thanks!<BR>_jeff<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Serusers mailing
list<BR>serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>