On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:49 -0500, M. Ranganathan wrote: > 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.
Certifying is all well and good, but let's be clear - in a real customer deployment we will encourage them to connect directly between sites, not using any ITSP, so we shouldn't use this as a motivation for any feature. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
