On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 13:22 -0400, Mossman, Paul (Paul) wrote: > Scott wrote: > > > Could we replace the "Unmanaged" SBC Route with Outbound Proxy and > > > Outbound Proxy Port settings on "pure" SIP Trunks? > > > > I'd prefer that we not call it a proxy, because it almost > > certainly isn't a proxy. If you think it's an improvement, I > > have no problem with changing 'Unmanaged' to 'External' or > > even 'Outbound'. > > So we can get rid of the "Unmanaged" type of SBC Routes. Excellent!
Where did you get that from? If someone has some unmanaged SBC (Ingate, Acme Packet, whatever) they need to be able to configure routes to/through it. > That leaves us with only sipXbridge type SBC Routes. Here's where I'm > going with this thread... > > > Let's consider a simplified workflow for adding an ITSP SIP Trunk > (XX-8137.) What's an intuitive workflow that includes differentiating > between "pure" and "ITSP" type SIP Trunks? > > I don't yet, but selecting "sipXbridge-1" as the "SBC Route" is > certainly not the answer. We should remove the "SBC Route" setting > from SIP Trunks. > > With "SBC Route" removed, I propose we also remove Devices -> SBC > Routes. It contains only SIP Trunking service configuration, which is > already found with other service configuration under System -> Servers > anyway. This would simplify both the UI and the sipXconfig code. > (See the root cause of XX-6944 I don't think that I understand what you're proposing well enough to evaluate it. Perhaps if you expressed it in terms of what is possible and what the normal flow would be... _______________________________________________ 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/
