Randy Bush wrote:
iax uses udp and traverses nats. neither of these seems useful to me. i loathe nats, and udp is not well-behaved in the sense of congestion avoidance.
You may indeed loathe NATted networks, but in general they're very hard to avoid. Why would you criticize a protocol for dealing with such a thing efficiently--which, quite famously, SIP does not?
Also I suspect if you spent about 2.5453 nanoseconds on a call done using *only* TCP, you would quickly have your answer wrt the use of UDP for VoIP.
Do you know of a successful VoIP protocol that is entirely TCP-based?
trunking will save some bytes in flight iff one has four or more streams moving between two pbxes. but who would want to have the pbxes in the data stream anyway? reinvite rules, especially in a geographically distributed use scenario.
I would want the PBX in the datastream in cases where multiple endpoint connections would pass through multiple IAX boxen, and in that case the trunking would save the decidedly-costly IP overhead that would be required if the endpoints were simply communicating directly--if bandwidth efficiency is a desideratum.
Perhaps in your case your networks are all public-IP, running on DS3s or OC48s. In that case I don't reckon efficiency would matter much. . . .
what am i missing here?
?? My guess would be experience, but that might be presumptous of me. I'll let others weigh in. Maybe I'm completely misreading this.
B.
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
