M. Ranganathan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Damian Krzeminski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Current NAT traversal support (we really could use a better name for this
>> feature) was written in parallel with a whole slew of non-trivial changes
>> in sipXconfig: adding support for multiple servers and re-write of
>> configuration generation.
>>
>> As a result NAT traversal UI doesn't do justice to this feature. It make
>> many capabilities impossible to configure, and the ones that are supported
>> are far from obvious.
>>
>> Some time ago Robert, Ranga and I came up with a list of changes. Only
>> recently, after completing server and services re-write we can actually
>> start implementing them:
>>
>> 1. New "NAT" tab for a Server will contain per-server NAT traversal 
>> parameters
>>
>> Public addressing (per-server parameters):
>> - Drop-down "use STUN" vs. "specify IP address"
>> - public IP address (if 'specify IP address')
>> - stun address and stun interval (if 'use STUN')
>> - public port - always available (even if "use STUN is selected") - public
>> port is not discovered by STUN
>>
>> - RTP start port (advanced)
>> - End RTP port (advanced)
> 
> Why not :
> 
> RTP start port (must be at an even boundary if you can enforce that)
> Max # of remote worker calls (default to 50)
> Max # of ITSP calls (default to 50)
> We can change the xml file format of nattraversalrules.xml ( assuming
> Robert has no counter suggestions ).  The parsing of that file can
> compute the End RTP port.

I did not forget about it (that's what my comment below applies to): I left
an issue opened for that.

http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XCF-2776

But I really want us to get the basics done first and then improve upon it.
I'd rather sipXconfig worried about computing the range: in this way it's
very clear what the port range really is. It's my understanding that admin
needs to see that anyway to configure firewall.

> 
>> 2. Current NAT Traversal page
>>
>> Parameters that will remain
>> - Enable NAT traversal
>> - Media-relay aggressiveness
>> - behind NAT checkbox - common - non-server specific parameter  (either
>> entire cluster is behind NAT or not)
>>
>> Improved port ranges configuration panel (per-cluster):
>> - maximum 'remote workers' calls
>> - maximum 'sipXbridge' calls
>>
>> In future (probably not 4.0) sipXconfig should calculate and displays port
>> ranges that needs to  be configured in firewall based on those values (4
>> ports per call)
> 
> But confused here. Are we going with port ranges or lower bound + maximum ?
> 

Port ranges for now.

> 
>> All other parameters will be removed:
>> - XML-RPC port - hidden - set by sipXconfig, not configurable
>> - External address (retrieved from server/location)
>> - Local address (retrieved from server/location)
>> - Logging level will be moved to sipXrelay configuration (and ultimately to
>> new common logging screen)
>>
>>
>> Some changes in "Internal SBC" configuration ("SIP" tab):
>> - Public address - removed
> 
> 
> The public address should be generated and put into the sipxbridge.xml
> file. I assume this will be done per item #1 ( the first one on your
> list)  above.
> 

Yes. That's why I said that there are some sipxbridge.xml adjustment required.

> 
> 
>> - External address - removed
>> - Maximum calls - (see above: moved to common port ranges panel)
>>
>> Internally nattraversalrules.xml should become sipXrelay configuration
> 
> 
> Are you going to change the name of it ?

No. I hope I never suggested it anywhere.

> 
>> files and will be generated in the same way as other configuration files
>> (and not with dial plans as today).
>>
>> The might be also some adjustments required in sipxbridge.xml generation -
>> to make sure that we get port and addressing data from Server/Location.
> 
>  Do you foresee any changes in sipxbridge.xml or nattraversalrules.xml  
> format?

I hope not: in my opinion they changed too much already ;-)

D.

_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev

Reply via email to