On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:59 -0400, Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) wrote: > > From: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) > > > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:44 -0400, Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) wrote: > > > > Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 15:05 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > > > > Note that with the NAT traversal feature, video should work for > > > > > any all-SIP call. > > > > > > > > That is, any all-SIP call that doesn't require media bridging. > > > > > > Can you be more specific about what you mean by media bridging? > > > > Where the media goes through sipXrelay. > > The NAT traversal feature will do NAT compensation for all-SIP calls for > both the audio and video sessions. For example, if you have a sipXecs > and softclient 'A' deployed behind a NAT and softclient 'B' deployed > behind a remote NAT. Suppose that 'A' and 'B' are both registered > against sipXecs then 'A' and 'B' will be able to have full audio+video > (as well as IM, but that's not really media) across the NATs. The NAT > Traversal feature will allocate a Media Relay session for each media > session type on the sipXrelay.
If sipXrelay can handle all media types already, is there any reason for sipXbridge to not offer to handle all media types? (Now, for current ITSPs which are just gateways to the PSTN, the ITSP will reject any offered video.) In the long run, there will be SIP-native ITSPs that will handle video as well as audio, and I see no reason to not have sipXbridge handle them now. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
