[OpenSIPS-Users] NAT and media/signaling IPs different

[Alex Balashov]

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" <abalashov at 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" <abalashov at 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" <ibc at 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