[VoiceOps] Enterprise customer desiring NAT for their SIP

[Guilherme Loch Waltrick Góes]

Frank,

The discussion about CUCM trunks begins here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/8x/trunks.html#wpxref94656.

Regards,

Guilherme Loch Góes



On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
> Guilherme:
>
> I searched the SRND and could find no such recommendation about that in
> relation to NAT.  Can you share the page number in the v8.x guide?
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guilherme Loch Waltrick Góes [mailto:glwgoes at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:29 AM
> To: Frank Bulk
> Cc: Alex Balashov; voiceops at voiceops.org
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Enterprise customer desiring NAT for their SIP
>
> Alex,
>
> Per  the Cisco SRND the recommend setup is to terminate the SIP trunk
> on a SBC inside a DMZ and setup a trunk between the CUCM cluster and
> the SBC. Cisco routers have a basic SBC called CUBE, maybe your client
> already have a router with such features, you should try that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guilherme Loch Góes
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
>> Yes, our SBC does supports the usual NAT traversal features, but our
>> customer will have more than one trunk with us...they have several two
> PRIs
>> today, so it will be 15 to 20 active trunks on a regular basis and almost
> 30
>> at peak.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org]
>> On Behalf Of Alex Balashov
>> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:10 PM
>> To: voiceops at voiceops.org
>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Enterprise customer desiring NAT for their SIP
>>
>> On 02/26/2012 05:15 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>>> We have an enterprise customer that wants to trial our SIP trunking
>> service.
>>> They're using Cisco Call Manager v8.5 and I tried to get them to use a
>>> public IP or a private VLAN to our network, but he insists that they want
>> to
>>> keep their CCM behind their NATing firewall.
>>>
>>> Our softswitch has an integrated SBC, so our side is covered, but I'm
>> afraid
>>> that they may run into some issues that are related to NAT but that we'll
>> be
>>> held responsible.
>>>
>>> Should I continue to push back on this customer, or let them go down this
>>> road?
>>
>> If your SBC supports all the usual far-end NAT traversal measures, you
>> should be good, particularly since this is just a single trunk.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Balashov - Principal
>> Evariste Systems LLC
>> 260 Peachtree Street NW
>> Suite 2200
>> Atlanta, GA 30303
>> Tel: +1-678-954-0670
>> Fax: +1-404-961-1892
>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>
>