[Spce-user] force_outbound_proxy in ngcp.sbcprofile.conf

[Stefan Sayer]

o Andreas Granig on 05/19/2011 01:17 PM:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 05/19/2011 01:08 PM, Stefan Sayer wrote:
>> as we figured out in recent discussion on sems list
>> (http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/sems/2011-May/003666.html),
>> force_outbound_proxy may make SEMS not 3261-compliant, as it adds itself
>> as first route. Probably next_hop_ip and next_hop_port should be used
>> instead.
>
> We use outbound_proxy, but not force_outbound_proxy, so this shouldn't
> break 3261, as far as I understood it.
ok. in my 2.2-rc1 installation, in ngcp.sbcprofile.conf, i still have 
force_outbound_proxy=yes

>
> The convenient thing about outbound_proxy is that when we've multiple
> load-balancers instead of just one (eg. if you scale out the community
> edition), then the load-balancer puts itself into the Path during
> subscriber registration, and the proxy can set the outbound proxy to
> this load-balancer for calls back out to the subscriber. This way, a
> subscriber can go via an arbitrary load-balancer (e.g. by using DNS SRV
> or even RR) and the NGCP would still be able to traverse NAT.
that's clever :)

>
> Guess it would be possible with next_hop/port also by using my own
> headers (?), but it'd still need to extract that from the Path URI in
> the proxy, which I don't when I use outbound_proxy.
what you put in P-D-Uri, you could also split up in host and port and 
put it in next_hop, like in
       next_hop_ip=$Hh(P-D-Uri)
       next_hop_port=$Hp(P-D-Uri)
(example straight from Readme.sbc.txt :)

but in your case, you will most probably be safe, because the sbc is 
between two kamailios anyway.

Stefan

>
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spce-user mailing list
> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user


-- 
Stefan Sayer
VoIP Services Consulting and Development

Warschauer Str. 24
10243 Berlin

tel:+491621366449
sip:sayer at iptel.org
email/xmpp:stefan.sayer at gmail.com