>> >>> On 4/2/2009 at 1:42 PM, in > message <[email protected] > m>, "Robert Joly" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm trying to understand the current method used to send a > > register request. > > > > What I think i'd like to see long term is a 2nd ip address > > bound simply to the remote register function, and see the > > register requests forward to that (private) ip and allow the > > traffic between trunking and remote users become better > > segregated at some point in the future. I would think that > > the second address scheme would also lend itself to being > > able to blend it into HA more easily. > > > > Does this make sense to anyone else? > > Let me play it back to test my understanding... You would like for > sipXecs to have two private IP addresses - one to be used by users and > the other to be used by ITSPs, right? If that is the case, could you > expand on the value that this arrangement will bring? >
Hence all user and trunk traffic can be pointed to the same public IP address and port. This makes a lot of sense to me, but maybe just me. Registers forwarded off to a separate component address so registrations are able to be observered independently of trunking traffic. Then I started wondering if this would help bring HA into the picture for remote users, and well, maybe I should have had that awful coffee this morning. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
