[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

[Thomas Gelf]

Hi Brett,

I'm responding being just a "user", so please don't trust my words too
much ;-) Afaik nat_traversal is an approach to move keepalive methods
to a single module, and let rtpproxy (currently: nathelper) and media-
proxy do what there name says: being just an RTP (media) proxy.

At the times where there was one single OpenSER project there might
also have been some personal preference regarding one or the other
module - and not everybody seemed to be amused to remove functionality
from the nathelper/rtpproxy combo.

Personally I consider nat_traversal's keep-alive mechanism far better
than the one provided with rtpproxy. I started three threads some day
ago, all of them around this topic. My intention was to initiate some
discussion / brainstorming - as the status quo is confusing, migration
in a good direction has been started a while ago, but now this movement
seems to have fallen asleep.

Imo we should figure out:

- whether there are still keepalive-features in nathelper, that are
  missing in nat_traversal (so far I found only what I mentioned in
  my thread "Comparing client_nat_test with nat_uac_test"

- if there is some k.o. criteria forbidding us to rename the nathelper
  module to "rtpproxy" and remove the keepalive functions

As told before, I'm not involved in development, just trying to make
suggestion from my position as "OpenSIP user" ;-)

Cheers,
Thomas


Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Migration from nathelper? What's this you say?  :)
> 
> 
> Can you for us "users" out here explain the implication of a new
> "nathelper"? Is nat_traveral intended to replace nathelper?  What's new?
> Am I jumping the gun asking these questions? :)
> 
> Thanks!
> -Brett
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> <bogdan at voice-system.ro
> <mailto:bogdan at voice-system.ro>> wrote:
> 
>     Dan, what about this? this will accelerate the migration from nathelper
>     to nat_tranversal module, what do you say?
> 
>     As time as it is not technical nightmare (from implementation point of
>     view), this feature make sense to me.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Bogdan