On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:03 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote: > I'm trying to understand the current method used to send a register > request. > > What I think i'd like to see long term is a 2nd ip address bound > simply to the remote register function, and see the register requests > forward to that (private) ip and allow the traffic between trunking > and remote users become better segregated at some point in the future. > I would think that the second address scheme would also lend itself to > being able to blend it into HA more easily.
and... > Hence all user and trunk traffic can be pointed to the same public IP > address and port. This makes a lot of sense to me, but maybe just me. > Registers forwarded off to a separate component address so > registrations are able to be observered independently of trunking > traffic. They already can be, since they go the proxy directly. I don't actually see the value of the dual-address model you describe. Addressing is a poor way to tag traffic. I very much doubt that any otherwise-good ITSP could not use whatever port you asked them to use for traffic to the PBX. > Then I started wondering if this would help bring HA into the picture > for remote users, and well, maybe I should have had that awful coffee > this morning. There's no straightforward way to get HA for NATed remote users without significant new functionality in the phone. The problem is that the NAT mapping will only be to the one IP address of the proxy that it uses to register. One of the things the new NAT support does is ensure that anything bound for that contact goes through the proxy it is using to register so that it will work. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
