Hi Damian, just my 2 cents on this below ... Damian Krzeminski ha scritto: > > It would be nice to see an explanation on how this change is to affect > XX-5884. But I have a simpler question: if we do change this as requested - > are we to remove automatic routes generation implemented in XX-5623? > > I don't think it should be removed. If an administrator configures a sipxbridge sip trunk to itspdomain.tld then all calls to that domain should work without further configurations outside the trunk itself. No matter if I use just the number or a full uri. It is simple to provide this out of the box. The administrator won't be forced to allow all possible domains enabling Internet Calling. Domains configured in sip trunks are a subset of possible valid domains. I believe it's a good balance to have sip trunks domains auto-magically enabled and to manually enable all the rest if the administrator think it's good for that particular deployment. > Also what type of advise should we be giving to administrator: should > sipXbridge be always used as default SBC for entire network? Even if there > are no trunks configured? > >
I would not give any particular advice. Just say: "In case you need a SBC you can use your own "free" internal SBC or of course you invest your fortune buying an expensive one". ;-) _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
