> >> >This has always been a gray area. I've posted the phrase on the lists >many times... "Not all ITSP's are equal." as well as "Not all SIP >TRUNKS are equal." > >I think at some point a line should be drawn to determine what an ITSP >should be able to support (in definitions) in order to maintain some >viability. I see both sides, for example Martins comments about >different parts of the world and the ITSP choices there. > >Example: Australia. I can connect and use Callcentric with sipx, but >callcentric sends DID info in TO not the INVITE. In some majorrt metro >markets there, they seem the be the largest player in the >US_with_Australia trunks.
We have the same problem in Europe and actually there now is a fix for this particular issue in the builds provided by Douglas. Incoming call routing based on TO field is configurable in sipXconfig. While I am told it is very bad behavior, it is done by a major ITSP in Europe. --martin > >I am seeing this same type of thing in Columbia. Of course I can >always use an external SBC. > >So I agree it should be "loosened" to a point... then I see Ranga's >issue... to what point. > >I like seeing this discussion though. It's healthy. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
