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