I agree; nothing can be forced. And yes, I do think proxy billing has vulnerabilities and technological limitations.
But the benefit of simplicity and QOS should also be considered in a commercial environment. There is not a convincing reason to be handling media if you are an ITSP / arbitrage call shop. Yes, if you are running your own interconnected voice core, might as well, but otherwise I think the costs and path cannot be justified. I actually find the opposite of what Paul says to be true; most people seem to think media bridging is required for accurate billing and I have to convince them otherwise, whether by proxy or B2BUA means. -- Sent from mobile device On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> wrote: > El Miércoles, 29 de Abril de 2009, Alex Balashov escribió: >> I suppose B2BUA can work but I was actually using a proxy element-- >> for >> example Kamailio's SST module. > > I don't understand: even if a proxy (as Kamailio) wants to > "participate" in > SessionTimer, the only it can do is inspecting SS headers and reply > 442, no > more. A proxy cannot force the call participants to use SessionTimers. > > BTW, I'm 120% sure that billing in a proxy is a very "hackeable" > solution. > I've tested some billing attacks for which a proxy has no defense. > > Regards. > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
