> Hello, > > Here is my proposal for > http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-7821 > <http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-7821> : Simplify NAT > Traversal and "Internet Calling" configuration > <http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-7821> > > 1. The name of "Internet Calling" is confusing. It is really > to enable SIP URI dialing through external SBC. Since Paul is > proposing to remove "Devices"->"SBC Routes" , I think maybe I > can hijack the name of "SBC Routes" for "Internet Calling", > which at least appear more intuitive to me. Anyone can come > up with a better name for this feature? > > 2. As "NAT Traversal" and "Internet Calling" really are meant > for different things, and there is no logical correlation, I > propose to keep them as completely separate items/pages under > "System", "Nat Traversal" and "SBC Routes" namely.
These two features can be viewed as providing similar services. Both will help you reach URIs that are outside of sipXecs's local private domain and will manage the NAT traversal issues. I'd like to propose a different approach... If we can position the internet calling and NAT traversal features as two competing technologies for achieving connectivity in a network plagued with NATs then I think we can simplify things quite a bit. The GUI could simply be a pull-down menu with a simple label: 'NAT Traversal provider' and the pull down menu has two choices: 1= Built-in NAT Traversal; 2= External SBC. You pick one or the other but you cannot have both. In either case, you will be required to datafill the Intranet subnets and Intranet domains on that page and will be used by whatever NAT traversal provider you have selected. I'd like to hear from the list whether or not anyone uses both Internat calling and NAT traversal features at the same time (and why)... > > 3. As there will never be a case (at least from practical > perspective), you want to use external SBC for internet > calling, yet use built-in Nat Traversal capability, there is > no need for them to share the common configuration, that is > the Intranet domain/subnets configuration. Both features need an exhaustive list of subnets and domain that make up the private network that sipXecs bathes in and that list is the same for both features. Does it make sense to have two places in the GUI where that information can be entered? I think there's inherent complixity in this as well. > In other words, > User choose to either use external SBC for internet calling, > or configure to use built in NAT traversal, and Internet > Calling and Nat Traversal page will have their own Intranet > domain/subnets configuration, and there are no correlation > between them. If simplifications is what we are after then I do not like this idea. Having to places seemingly requesting the same set of (complex) information does not help simplicity. > > 4. Re-do help text. Help text for "Internet Calling" is not > accurate, which also leads confusion. i.e. "Specifying an > SBC is required if your network is behind a firewall or NAT > device.", which is not true, as we have built-in NAT > Traversal now, external SBC is not required for SIP URI > calling when behind a firewall or NAT. > > > Thoughts? > > Thanks > Huijun > > > > > _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
