On 10/28/2010 09:07 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: >> While we believe that SBCs are one of the things the world does not >> really need, apparently some marketing departments have convinced the >> world otherwise. > > No truer a statement ever made.
Well, I'm still not quite sure what makes a B2BUA an SBC (it probably just sounds more professional :) ), but in the real world, B2BUAs become very handy from time to time. Lots of UAs are still pretty broken when it comes to processing larger (~ >5) Via/Route/Record-Route sets (I'm looking at you, Cisco). In such cases, chances are high to also exceed the MTU size, and with fragmentation all this broken SOHO NAT devices add themselves to the game. So from my perspective, I highly appreciate your efforts, Stefan! > This is a very exciting development and I am thrilled to hear of it! I > will definitely contribute to testing. We're using sippy b2bua in some deployments, where we currently implement transaction and dialog persistence using redis as a backend, since it's simple, fast, easy-to-use and offers replication. Thus, you can replicate states to a standby server and from there continue processing active transactions and dialogs after a fail-over. Are there any plans for such a thing on the road-map for sems? Do you see any show-stoppers implementing this? Either way, I'll definitely have a look at it to get rid of sippy. Andreas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sems mailing list [email protected] http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems
