>> 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?
i did not criticize the protocol. remember, my question started with >> i am looking at iax to see if it is applicable to my needs. i don't need nats, nat traversal, nat anything. if i did, iax might well be one of the technologies i would consider. but i don't. > Do you know of a successful VoIP protocol that is entirely > TCP-based? not currently, though folk are working hard on the congestion friendliness issue. if you're interested, i can point you to the relevant part of the ivtf basement. > I would want the PBX in the datastream in cases where multiple > endpoint connections would pass through multiple IAX boxen why? and yes, i mean the question. i see setup running through the boxen, of course. i just don't see why you would want the payload to traverse what might be a pretty baroque multi- continental path. i may have big pipes, but the bleedin' speed of light seems not to be very impressed. > Perhaps in your case your networks are all public-IP, running > on DS3s or OC48s. well not ds3s, stm-1 and above. but i ain't a big fan of wasting bytes. i am also not a fan of triangle routing. and maybe we could avoid the ad homina which seems to be too frequent on this list? randy _______________________________________________ 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
