Victor Pascual Ávila wrote: > When a caller is behind a NAT, rewriting SDP in INVITE to include an > RTP relay's address in it is a pretty common practice. > Leaving RFC3261 fundamentalism aside-- do we consider it then still > legitimate enough to call it a "SIP proxy"? >
You are using deliberatively provocative words. This has nothing to do with fundamentalism or legitimacy. If you have a device that rewrites SDPs in INVITEs, to enable cross-NAT working, then it falls into a different category than "proxy". This doesn't make it bad, or illegitimate[0], simply different. I don't understand what advantage there is in calling this device a proxy when you can instead highlight the features it has that a proxy doesn't. The market generally refers to these devices as SBCs or B2BUAs, which helps to distinguish what they can do. Calling it simply a proxy seems unhelpful, especially to potential customers. (ETA: Just read Scott's response, and agree completely. If you have an extra feature, tell people rather than hiding it!) Michael [0] Some differ in this opinion ;-) _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
