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

[Jeff Pyle]

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.
>> 
>