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

[Uwe Kastens]

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.
> 
> 


-- 

kiste lat: 54.322684, lon: 10.13586