Hi, To use different IPs for signaling and media gives some option not only for big installations: - give a customer the media gw which has the best ip connection (based on src.ip and geographic location), - scale with dump server instead of sbcs,
BR Uwe Alex Balashov schrieb: > The topology you describe is an alternative, if you've got the capital > to blow on SBCs. > > Jeff Pyle wrote: > >> Alex, >> >> That makes sense, but for NAT? Vonage, for example. Signaling and media >> are the same last time I looked. Since the provider has immediate control >> of where the client registers, scaling is available by adding more SBCs and >> controlling which users hit which SBCs. >> >> >> - Jeff >> >> >> >> On 6/8/09 8:29 PM, "Alex Balashov" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It is absolutely indispensable to separate signaling and media for >>> large-scale service delivery platforms. Think about traditional switch >>> architecture (signaling agent <-> media gateway farm). >>> >>> Jeff Pyle wrote: >>> >>>> Alex & Iñaki, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the info. I knew in a non-NAT scenario this was the case; I had >>>> never seen it done separately in a NAT scenario. That's good news. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/8/09 8:22 PM, "Alex Balashov" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> No, it is not necessary. >>>>> >>>>> The signaling and the bearer plane can be separate entirely. >>>> And on 6/8/09 8:16 PM, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Not at all. > > -- kiste lat: 54.322684, lon: 10.13586 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
