[Freeswitch-users] FS as Media Gateway Only

[David Ponzone]

I don't see the issue.
They will send their RTP to FS-RTP-x, and FS-RTP-x will autoadjust to  
this stream in order to learn the real IP:port of the endpoint.

David Ponzone  Direction Technique
email: david.ponzone at ipeva.fr
tel:      01 74 03 18 97
gsm:   06 66 98 76 34

Service Client IPeva
tel:      0811 46 26 26
www.ipeva.fr  -   www.ipeva-studio.com

Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis  
à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou  
diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est  
susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre  
de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes  
pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et  
d'avertir l'expéditeur.




Le 18/06/2010 à 00:46, Code Ghar a écrit :

> I haven't had a chance to actually test this config in lab but I  
> will in the coming days. One issue I see is when we use registered  
> endpoints, such as ATAs, behind NAT: bypass_media fails in this case  
> because FS uses the private network IP instead of the public network  
> IP in SDP. In case of a large number of such registered endpoints,  
> we may have to make them talk with an FS-RTP server directly because  
> they don't use bypass_media while FS-SIP does. Can we use  
> bypass_media_after_reinvite for them or would it have the same  
> behavior of using private IP? Or we could use proxy_media; which is  
> not want we really want to do but could work in a pinch. Or is there  
> a better way to combine bypass_media with NAT'ed endpoints?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM, David Ponzone  
> <david.ponzone at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> You're right, it can be achieved with SIP now that I think a bit  
> more about it.
> The idea was to allow adding multiple media gateways when required,  
> so the media gateways should not be facing the carriers as some of  
> them do SIP-filtering, but should only be advertised in the SDP.
>
> So SIP-only boxes (doing bypass-media) should face the carriers to  
> handle the trunking.
> In the middle, we would then have the media gateways, doing SIP and  
> mostly RTP.
> But I guess we dont want customers to register and to send calls to  
> a media gateway, so we need another set of SIP boxes on the other  
> side, doing bypass-media also.
>
> So it would like this:
>
>                              ------sip-----FS-RTP-1-----sip------
> FS-SIP-Internal-1 ------sip-----FS-RTP-2-----sip------FS-SIP- 
> External-1----sip-----Carriers
>                              ------sip-----FS-RTP-3-----sip------
> FS-SIP-Internal-2 -------sip----FS-RTP-4-----sip------FS-SIP- 
> External-2-----sip----Carriers
>                              -------sip----FS-RTP-5-----sip------
>
> Thanks to bypass-media, the RTP streams would go from customer to FS- 
> RTP-x to Carriers, and reverse.
> And I don't see any reason why the same set of FS-SIP boxes could  
> not be used for both internal and external borders.
>
> Is there something wrong in this ?
>
> Code, does it help ?
>
> David Ponzone  Direction Technique
> email: david.ponzone at ipeva.fr
> tel:      01 74 03 18 97
> gsm:   06 66 98 76 34
>
> Service Client IPeva
> tel:      0811 46 26 26
> www.ipeva.fr  -   www.ipeva-studio.com
>
> Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et  
> établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute  
> utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message  
> électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute  
> responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou  
> falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le  
> détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur.
>
>
>
>
> Le 05/06/2010 à 19:54, Michael Jerris a écrit :
>
>> Why would it be an advantage to have your media proxies use another  
>> protocol?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:59 AM, David Ponzone wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't solve the issue that all the media servers will do  
>>> signaling too, and will talk SIP with the carriers.
>>> So the carriers will need to allow all the media servers .
>>>
>>> The only clean solution to avoid that, I think, is to have  
>>> signaling boxes allocating resources from media servers with  
>>> another protocol than SIP.
>>> RTPproxy does that I think, but I am not sure how it works.
>>>
>>> David Ponzone
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
>> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
>> http://www.freeswitch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20100618/700a4735/attachment-0001.html