2008/9/29, M. Ranganathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > That has NOTHING to do with rport. XMPP is a whole lot simpler than > SIP. Try doing call transfer, redundancy, fail over, load balancing > etc with xmpp. XMPP is good for IM and simple point to point voice > calls (jingle). SIP is simply over engineered for point to point > instant messaging and presence - like shooting a fly with a cannon. > The only reason to use SIP for such things as presence is if you are > already using it for multimedia.
Completely agree here. IMHO the big error comes from the origin of SIP design, that assumes there is no NAT and defines replying by looking at the received "Via" header instead of replying directly to the real soure IP:**port**. I really wonder why. It would be much easier if replies are sent, by default, to the source IP:port when the transport protocol is UDP (SIP TCP already ahs that behaviour by design). Regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
