On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Martin Steinmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>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
It is not recommended SIP protocol practice to route by To header but it does not break the protocol in the same way as not supplying a SDP in an OK to an INVITE. Regards, Ranga > >> >>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. > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ 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/
