Robert,
NAT traversal is solved by OpenSIPS/MediaProxy combination for both
signalling and media. Cost is important for an operator and any
intermediate like an SBC, which does not bring any value to end
customer is not likely to remain there for long.
What I am trying to figure out is if there are other good reasons
besides the NAT issue for which the insertion of the SBC justifies its
cost for an operator.
Regards,
Adrian
On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:02 AM, Robert Dyck wrote:
You are right, these terms are used in a rather casual manner. Also
privacy
and security can never be absolute. However there are reasons why an
individual or organization may want to hide their topology. Those
with bad
intentions may look for clues so that they may subvert the system.
Perhaps a stronger case can be made when we consider that NAT is
perhaps the
biggest headache with SIP. Different service providers have
different ideas
how they might overcome the problem. If a UA on a LAN or an
extension on a
PBX appears as a simple UA with a public address then the chance of
success
improves.
OpenSBC may be the way to go. It will act as a proxy or B2BUA. The
nice thing
about OpenSIPS is its light weight if you don't need a lot of
modules. I am
not a programmer but it seems to me that it would not be too
difficult to
hide the private VIAs and CONTACTs. It already supports mediaproxy/
rtpproxy.
On Wednesday 10 December 2008, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Robert,
Could you expand on what you mean by:
1. Privacy
2. Extra security
These seem to be highly abused terms while there is no proper
description available of what they mean and for whom they provide the
benefit.
Adrian
On Dec 10, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Robert Dyck wrote:
I see a need for a very basic proxy-like B2BUA. This would
completely hide the
local topology. This would provide privacy and extra security as
well as
working around the bad behaviour of some service providers.
Rob
On Wednesday 10 December 2008, Brett Nemeroff wrote:
For what it's worth, I've had problems doing this with some
[broken]
carriers. Namely they see a private address in one of the Vias and
they assume it's NAT.. Pretty messy. If you look through the
archive
you'll see what happened to me.
That being said, I think it's pretty unusual that this happens.
-Brett
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Giuseppe Roberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi.
I have an opensips server running "between" a man local area and
internet. This mean that UAC comes from local area and gateways
are on
internet.
The local interface (eth0) ip is not reachable from internet.
Opensips server can traverse the nat using add_local_rport(), can
mediaproxy do the same ?
Regards.
--
Giuseppe Roberti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
