On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/2/24 Johansson Olle E <[email protected]>: >> >> 24 feb 2009 kl. 10.28 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo: >>> >>> It's very "cool" to say that we don't need B2BUA but proxies, but I >>> would really like to know a *real* case of two independent companies >>> interconnected just with SIP proxies. >> >> I think the truth is that in the case of enterprise PBXs we need both. The >> SIP proxy, which only handles signalling, scales. Anything that handles >> media, like most b2bua's, doesn't scale easily. > > Yes, the proxy could act as registrar, forking proxy, NAT keepalive... > something like: > > > SIP/PSTN > | > B2BUA > | > Proxy/Registrar ---- Persence Server > / | \ > phone1 phone2 phone3 > > > There could be more B2BUA in parallel and the proxy acting as > dispatcher. But the B2BUA is required for *most* common telephony > features in an enterprise environment. > > Sincerelly I don't understand why there is some obsession against > B2BUA's. The provide funcionalities unfeasible for a proxy, they are > required in most cases.
Features are implementable as User Agents. There is no need for a BACK TO BACK User Agent to implement most features. Notable exception : Session Border Controller. :-) Using a B2BUA where you should be using a proxy is needless complication and just bad engineering. > > > > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
