Shotgunning the use of IP addresses is foolish at best and lazy
programming at worst. Imagine if the poeple writing browsers did that!
The internet could end up with double or triple the traffic for no
extra benefit not to mention the additinoal load on web servers etc.
It's not particularly
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 08:43 +0100, Grey Man wrote:
It's not particularly difficult to determine the best IP address for a
piece of client software to use.
Oh?
Check the local machines default
gateway, apply the subnet mask and then compare it against all the
local IP's.
Yeah? And if
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Brian J. Murrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check the local machines default
gateway, apply the subnet mask and then compare it against all the
local IP's.
Yeah? And if more than one matches? Then what?
Use one of them!
And if the network set up is too
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:54 +0100, Grey Man wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Brian J. Murrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah? And if more than one matches? Then what?
Use one of them!
And if the one I choose to use doesn't work because of some kind of
policy routing or
A machine with more than one default gateway is a VERY special case
(used for load-balancing or possibly failover). Most systems will not
allow it. I mean... logically, it's odd. Default means when not applied
to any other special rule, I choose this one.Not this two. Not this
three. This one.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brian J. Murrell
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:12 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] sip forking needed for ekiga 3.0
I've read
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:16 -0400, SIP wrote:
The RFCs are there for a reason. All SIP forking is UAS territory. Not
UAC territory.
From http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553810 Damien Sandras
asks:
I repeat, Ekiga is doing something perfectly legal.
The real
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:16 -0400, SIP wrote:
The RFCs are there for a reason. All SIP forking is UAS territory. Not
UAC territory.
From http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553810 Damien Sandras
asks:
I repeat, Ekiga is doing something
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:41 -0400, SIP wrote:
Oh yes. It's perfectly legal.
It's also a) NOT SIP forking, b) Lazy, and c) Poorly designed.
Sending multiple requests and hoping and praying that the recipient will
ignore two of them (it will NOT in many cases -- specifically set out by
the
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:16 -0400, SIP wrote:
The RFCs are there for a reason. All SIP forking is UAS territory. Not
UAC territory.
From http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553810 Damien Sandras
asks:
I repeat, Ekiga is doing something perfectly
So, I have been testing ekiga 3.0 with Asterisk, and sadly, it don't
work. I am told by the ekiga devs in
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553595 and
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553810 that the problem is
that Asterisk does not support SIP forking.
The issue is that I have
My thoughts are that to do parallel requests from every IP address on
the machine is extremely weird behaviour.
How would any server know which to respond to?
SIP forking is supposed to send requests to multiple different
destinations (or fork mid-stream to send to different destinations).
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 14:56 -0400, SIP wrote:
Sending from multiple different points of origin doesn't make any sense
at all in either a logical or rational fashion. What's it supposed to
accomplish?
It seems to be a shot-gun approach to making a SIP connection. The
assumption being I suppose
That strikes me as being careless and unreliable. Call me a purist, but
I'm of the opinion that you should KNOW which interface to use based on
which interface is registered and choose ONE interface based on the
rules you've established during registration. What happens if you want
to ensure
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 15:31 -0400, SIP wrote:
That strikes me as being careless and unreliable.
That's one argument. I can also see the ekiga developers' argument
though and that's to strive for the most automatic functionality
possible. The less things you have to ask users, the more likely
You need to define what you mean by SIP forking. There are many
things people mean by that. They are usually one of:
1) Call branching (proxies do this).
2) Parallel but distinct call legs managed by a UAC (this is what
Asterisk does when you Dial(SIP/exten1SIP/exten2SIP/exten3,...)).
--
Alex Balashov wrote:
You need to define what you mean by SIP forking. There are many
things people mean by that. They are usually one of:
1) Call branching (proxies do this).
2) Parallel but distinct call legs managed by a UAC (this is what
Asterisk does when you
17 matches
Mail list logo
