> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:01 -0400, Robert Joly wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Regarding XCF-3139 (Cannot add or delete Intranet Subnets on the
> > > Internet Calling GUI Page) After a discussion took on IRC
> we agreed
> > > upon the following changes:
> > >
> > > 1.Create a new page with topology/subnets - will allow
> creation of
> > > multiple sets of topology/subnets 2.All sets will be generated in
> > > nattraversalrules.xml we will have something like:
> > > <localtopology>
> > > <ipV4subnet>10.0.0.0/8</ipV4subnet>
> > > <ipV4subnet>172.16.0.0/12</ipV4subnet>
> > > <ipV4subnet>192.168.0.0/16</ipV4subnet>
> > > <dnsWildcard>*.d1.itcnetworks.ro</dnsWildcard>
> > > </localtopology>
> > > <localtopology>
> > > <ipV4subnet>11.0.0.0/8</ipV4subnet>
> > > <ipV4subnet>173.16.0.0/12</ipV4subnet>
> > > <ipV4subnet>194.168.0.0/16</ipV4subnet>
> > > <dnsWildcard>*.d2.itcnetworks.ro</dnsWildcard>
> > > </localtopology>
> > > 3.Internet Calling page will be changed - such as:
> depending on what
> > > sbc is selected will pick a topology/subnet set (from a drop-down
> > > probably) 4.For now we will keep NatTraversal Tab
> > > - we may find a better solution by the end of this sprint if time
> > > permits
> > >
> > > Please share your opinions.
> >
> > A few comments:
> > 1- I like the idea of separating the topology information from
> > internet calling & NAT traversal.
> > 2- One could make the argument that the 'server behind NAT'
> > information element relates to topology. A UI-savvy person (that
> > excludes me!) should consider whether or not that setting should be
> > moved to your new topology page.
> > 3- What is the motivation for providing multiple topology
> sets. If we
> > cannot think of a compelling use case then my vote is to stick a
> > single set for simplicity sake.
>
> There are lots of companies out there that have multiple
> subnets - ours included, but even small ones often do.
That I understand and that has my full support however that is not what
I was inquiring about. A topology can consist of n IP subnets and m DNS
widlcards and that is fine but what is being proposed is the ability to
define multiple topologies. See xml file mock-up proposed (re-copied
below):
<localtopology>
<ipV4subnet>10.0.0.0/8</ipV4subnet>
<ipV4subnet>172.16.0.0/12</ipV4subnet>
<ipV4subnet>192.168.0.0/16</ipV4subnet>
<dnsWildcard>*.d1.itcnetworks.ro</dnsWildcard>
</localtopology>
<localtopology>
<ipV4subnet>11.0.0.0/8</ipV4subnet>
<ipV4subnet>173.16.0.0/12</ipV4subnet>
<ipV4subnet>194.168.0.0/16</ipV4subnet>
<dnsWildcard>*.d2.itcnetworks.ro</dnsWildcard>
</localtopology>
What I'm asking about is the presence of multiple <localtopology>.
Currently, we can only define one local topology (hence a single
<localtopology>). Is was inquiring about the justifications for
introducing multiple ones.
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
