Maybe the right solution would be to have three modules (new names): - mediaproxycontroller - rtpproxycontroller - natclienthelper
for a mediaproxy solution one would need two modules: - mediaproxycontroller - natclienthelper for an rtpproxy solution one would need two modules: - rtpproxycontroller - natclienthelper Like this, the nat detection would be in one single place (natclienthelper module). Memory utilization would benefit from this splitting: load only what you need. Regards, Ovidiu Sas On 12/15/06, Klaus Darilion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Granig wrote: > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: >> I would say yes...maybe adding 16 for safety reasons ;). > > Good idea, but I was just looking at client_nat_test of mediaproxy > module, not nat_uac_test of nathelper. > > To avoid confusions like that, I'd generally propose to rip out the > nat-traversal stuff (client_nat_test, fix_contact) from mediaproxy, > because it does exactly the same as the corresponding nathelper > functions (nat_uac_test and fix_nated_contact). I don't see the point of > having redundant code here. Makes sense. I use mediaproxy for RTP proxy, but nathelper for fix_nated..... regards klaus > >> what about "intelligent" ALGs on the path? > > As noted before, customers are strongly advised not to use any. I guess, > you all know why ;o) > And there's no other point on the path where an ALG not under customer's > or our control could be placed in this specific deployment. > > Regards, > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users -- Klaus Darilion nic.at _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
