[OpenSIPS-Users] Old question about mediaproxy "bridge" mode between public and private networks

[Adrian Georgescu]

Robert,

NAT traversal is solved by OpenSIPS/MediaProxy combination for both  
signalling and media. Cost is important for an operator and any  
intermediate like an SBC, which does not bring any value to end  
customer is not likely to remain there for long.

What I am trying to figure out is if there are other good reasons  
besides the NAT issue for which the insertion of the SBC justifies its  
cost for an operator.

Regards,
Adrian

On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:02 AM, Robert Dyck wrote:

> You are right, these terms are used in a rather casual manner. Also  
> privacy
> and security can never be absolute. However there are reasons why an
> individual or organization may want to hide their topology. Those  
> with bad
> intentions may look for clues so that they may subvert the system.
>
> Perhaps a stronger case can be made when we consider that NAT is  
> perhaps the
> biggest headache with SIP. Different service providers have  
> different ideas
> how they might overcome the problem. If a UA on a LAN or an  
> extension on a
> PBX appears as a simple UA with a public address then the chance of  
> success
> improves.
>
> OpenSBC may be the way to go. It will act as a proxy or B2BUA. The  
> nice thing
> about OpenSIPS is its light weight if you don't need a lot of  
> modules. I am
> not a programmer but it seems to me that it would not be too  
> difficult to
> hide the private VIAs and CONTACTs. It already supports mediaproxy/ 
> rtpproxy.
>
> On Wednesday 10 December 2008, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
>> Robert,
>>
>> Could you expand on what you mean by:
>>
>> 1. Privacy
>> 2. Extra security
>>
>> These seem to be highly abused terms while there is no proper
>> description available of what they mean and for whom they provide the
>> benefit.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Robert Dyck wrote:
>>> I see a need for a very basic proxy-like B2BUA. This would
>>> completely hide the
>>> local topology. This would provide privacy and extra security as
>>> well as
>>> working around the bad behaviour of some service providers.
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 10 December 2008, Brett Nemeroff wrote:
>>>> For what it's worth, I've had problems doing this with some  
>>>> [broken]
>>>> carriers. Namely they see a private address in one of the Vias and
>>>> they assume it's NAT.. Pretty messy. If you look through the  
>>>> archive
>>>> you'll see what happened to me.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, I think it's pretty unusual that this happens.
>>>> -Brett
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Giuseppe Roberti <jnod at jnod.org>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an opensips server running "between" a man local area and
>>>>> internet. This mean that UAC comes from local area and gateways
>>>>> are on
>>>>> internet.
>>>>> The local interface (eth0) ip is not reachable from internet.
>>>>> Opensips server can traverse the nat using add_local_rport(), can
>>>>> mediaproxy do the same ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Giuseppe Roberti
>>>>> <jnod at jnod.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20081211/236c7ce8/attachment-0001.htm