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.
Ah... ok.
Mircea... what's the difference between one localtopology element like
you describe above that contains all the subnets, and many?
The config proposal was wrong - I am sorry. We don't need multiple
<localtopology> tags. I had a bad understanding about multiple topologies...
Basically one <localtopology> tag contains all required info to reflect
multiple topologies concept.
I am sorry I scared all of you :)
I think that in the future, we may need many for some purposes (branch
office support), but I don't want to try to solve that kind of problem
yet.
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
