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

[Jeff Pyle]

No, no I don't... :)  Separate IPs it is!


- Jeff



On 6/8/09 8:41 PM, "Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>