Thanks for the active replies =) ... I guess we can use a combination
of the various nat solutions we have to suite as the need be. Lets say,
SER has nathelper and mediaproxy for nated clients, but when UA is from
a NAT with Siproxd, SER does not need to use mediaproxy .<br>
<br>
As for how many simultaneous calls it can support there seems to be no
data for that yet even on their official website. Maybe the community
there could schedule some tests later.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
_jeff <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/2/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Greger V. Teigre</b> <<a href="mailto:greger@teigre.com">greger@teigre.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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 <a href="http://mydomain.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">mydomain.com</a> 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><span class="sg">
<div> </div>
<div>g-)</div></span></blockquote></div>