NAT and media/signaling IPs different

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Jeff Pyle
Hello,

In my experience with SIP thus far I've been rather insulated from the ill
effects of NAT on SIP and RTP.  My honeymoon is over.

In every NAT-supporting commercial SBC I've seen the signaling IP is the
same as the media IP.  Is this necessary?  In Opensips/Mediaproxy terms,
does Opensips need to be operating on the same IP address as the media
relay?

The clients in this case are things like X-Lite, Linksys ATAs or Polycom IP
handsets behind dumb Linksys/Netgear/D-Link/whatever residential gateway
style wireless routers.


Thanks,
Jeff


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Martes, 9 de Junio de 2009, Jeff Pyle escribió:
> In Opensips/Mediaproxy terms,
> does Opensips need to be operating on the same IP address as the media
> relay?

Not at all.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Alex Balashov
In reply to this post by Jeff Pyle
Jeff Pyle wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In my experience with SIP thus far I've been rather insulated from the ill
> effects of NAT on SIP and RTP.  My honeymoon is over.
>
> In every NAT-supporting commercial SBC I've seen the signaling IP is the
> same as the media IP.  Is this necessary?  In Opensips/Mediaproxy terms,
> does Opensips need to be operating on the same IP address as the media
> relay?

No, it is not necessary.

The signaling and the bearer plane can be separate entirely.

--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Jeff Pyle
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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not at all.


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Alex Balashov
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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Not at all.
>


--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Alex Balashov
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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>


--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Jeff Pyle
No, no I don't... :)  Separate IPs it is!


- Jeff



On 6/8/09 8:41 PM, "Alex Balashov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>>
>


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Uwe Kastens
In reply to this post by Alex Balashov
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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>
>


--

kiste lat: 54.322684, lon: 10.13586

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Alex Balashov
I did not mean to imply it was only useful in large-scale architecture.
  Good point.

Uwe Kastens wrote:

> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>
>
>


--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NAT and media/signaling IPs different

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
In reply to this post by Jeff Pyle
Jeff,

There are different approaches is scaling due to the fact that
signalling and media scale differently:
    - you can go for populating your network with SBC (for NAT) and you
end-up with same IP for both signalling and media
    - you can keep a core signalling system and to populate your network
with media relays only - and you end up with different sig and media IP.

Regards,
Bogdan

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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Not at all.
>>>>        
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>  


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users