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

[Alex Balashov]

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" <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