On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Dale Worley<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 14:54 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> It seems to me that this should be relatively easy to support in >> sipxbridge. Will this scheme work in principle, as a possible solution >> for federating systems? If not, what is wrong with this? > > Between the two of them, how do Systems A and B decide which one will be > responsible for media relaying? It seems like that's the tricky bit. > > Dale
System B would always be the relay ( just like in the case of Remote worker today ). It would be doing the "NAT compensation" for sipxbridge which is essentially multiplexing requests to multiple phones which are part of system A. You would have an "ITSP" record that gives the public address of System B as well a flag that says "Do not relay" ( because System B does the NAT compensation ). Ranga > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ 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/
