Emmanuel BUU wrote:
>>   
> Hum great, maybe I can help with the NATHELPER module of OpenSIPS if you 
> describe me what change have been made to the RTP proxy control protocol 
> and provide me access to the source code.

Yes, it should be possible. I will see what I can do in the next few days.

>>> 2/ External NAT handling
>>>
>>> I would also to handle the case where RTP proxy is behind a NAT (one to
>>> one NAT). If the communication is on the internal network then the
>>> previous processing is applied. If the communication is to be done with 
>>> the external network, rtp proxy would bind to the same interface but 
>>> advertise the NATed adress in the answer.
>>>     
> What about this case? Is there a way to handle external NAT by pairing 
> some interface witn an external advertised address ?
>>> We propose to implement these two enhancements but would like to agree 
>>> with the rtp maintainer in order to have a chance to push this into the 
>>> open source. This lead me to  another question. RTPProxy has currently 
>>> no configuration file. Would the crowd here consider such an addition to 
>>> describe the networks (and maybe the port range)?
>>>
>>> What config library would you favor?
>>>     
>>
>> Yes, RTPproxy really needs a configuration file, this is something on my 
>> list of features for 2.0 as well. I don't have any strong preference for 
>> config library, however it should meet the few basic criteria:
>>
>> 1. BSD-like license. Apache, Mozilla, MIT are fine. No GPL/LGPL.
>>
>> 2. Clean interface and internal representation. Ability to have 
>> different contexts.
>>
>> 3. Ability to handle on-the-fly config file reload gracefully.
>>
>> So, feel free if you want to suggest and discuss something or even want 
>> to make a code submission.
>>   
> Few !! These are proper requirements. Why is GPL not accepted? I thought 
> that rtpproxy was GPL also?
> Or maybe there is an intellectual propery issue?

RTPproxy is BSD licensed, and I have reasons for it to stay that way. So 
we cannot include any GPL or LGPL code since it would effectively 
"infect" the rest of the codebase.

> Ok I did not find any of these compling the 3 requirements. Req #3 is 
> tough ...

This one should not be very difficult, I think many of the packages that 
use config files out there has it in one way or another.

Regards,
-- 
Maksym Sobolyev
Sippy Software, Inc.
Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts
T/F: +1-646-651-1110
Web: http://www.sippysoft.com
MSN: [email protected]
Skype: SippySoft

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtpproxy.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to