You are very welcome. Please let me know if you have any ideas on how it
might be usefully expanded. Some others have made good suggestions, but
unfortunately they present scope challenges because they lie outside the
sphere of server-side NAT traversal as such.
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:52:08AM
Alex,
Thank you for this blog post, great work, very helpfull information!
Much appreciated.
On 11/05/18 15:13, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hi,
I have updated this article with some other topics:
http://blog.csrpswitch.com/server-side-nat-traversal-with-kamailio-the-definitive-guide/
"The
Why not topology hiding, in such cases? Not always clients support TLS...
On Mon, May 14, 2018, 20:38 Alex Balashov wrote:
> Hi Sergiu,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion! I've not encountered this on a sufficiently
> widespread basis that I personally feel it merits
Hi Sergiu,
Thanks for the suggestion! I've not encountered this on a sufficiently
widespread basis that I personally feel it merits inclusion in the
article, given its already rather broad scope. However, I will certainly
have a think on whether there it ought to be incorporated into
additional
Hi Alex,
Glad to see the mention of SIP Outbound in your updated article. Here's
another 5+5 cents of mine that might help others in the future.
May be you faced it, may be not, but in the multi-homed scenario that you
describe in your article, there may be circumstances under which calls
Thank you, but the scope is ambitious enough that I think it would make most
sense to limit it to Kamailio-native approaches only.
On May 12, 2018 8:31:58 AM GMT+02:00, Mojtaba wrote:
>Hi,
>That's greats concept in this regards.
>I think it could be great to describe about
Hi,
That's greats concept in this regards.
I think it could be great to describe about SEMS (e.g B2BUA,
NAT-Traversal) and working it with Kamailio.
The SEMS has proper modules to solve NAT Traversal in Kamailio,too
If you want, I could give you it's documents.
Thanks With Regards.Mojtaba
On Fri,