Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
Jeff, There are different approaches is scaling due to the fact that signalling and media scale differently: - you can go for populating your network with SBC (for NAT) and you end-up with same IP for both signalling and media - you can keep a core signalling system and to populate your network with media relays only - and you end up with different sig and media IP. Regards, Bogdan 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 i...@aliax.net wrote: Not at all. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 i...@aliax.net wrote: Not at all. -- kiste lat: 54.322684, lon: 10.13586 ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
I did not mean to imply it was only useful in large-scale architecture. Good point. Uwe Kastens wrote: 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 i...@aliax.net wrote: Not at all. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
El Martes, 9 de Junio de 2009, Jeff Pyle escribió: In Opensips/Mediaproxy terms, does Opensips need to be operating on the same IP address as the media relay? Not at all. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo i...@aliax.net ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
Jeff Pyle wrote: Hello, In my experience with SIP thus far I've been rather insulated from the ill effects of NAT on SIP and RTP. My honeymoon is over. In every NAT-supporting commercial SBC I've seen the signaling IP is the same as the media IP. Is this necessary? In Opensips/Mediaproxy terms, does Opensips need to be operating on the same IP address as the media relay? No, it is not necessary. The signaling and the bearer plane can be separate entirely. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 i...@aliax.net wrote: Not at all. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different
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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 abalas...@evaristesys.com 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 i...@aliax.net wrote: Not at all. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
