On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Dale Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:02 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote: >> If we're going to support PBX-to-PBX we don't _need_ the ITSP, and we >> should not send the call to them in the first place. >> >> Let's keep our conceptual model clean here: an ITSP is a Gateway to the >> PSTN - it is NOT some kind of intermediary between us and any other >> SIP-capable system. If by chance we don't know the SIP address and send >> to the ITSP, and it sends the call with SIP directly to the target >> without actually going through the PSTN, that's fine, but to us it's all >> the same. > > I can easily imagine ITSPs making a business niche connecting SIP > systems, e.g., by providing QoS guarantees. If such an ITSP is > transparent, we should surely support it, but I expect that the real > world will be plagued by intermediate cases as well. > > Dale > >
Actually the AT&T certification suite requires that two instances of pbx connect to each other via AT&T. They recommended that I do the test using loopback. Ranga > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
