2011/10/11 Jon Bonilla <[email protected]>: >> >> SBCs exist because they offer "some services" like for example... hum? >> and due the fact that no vendor implements SIP security at all. >> > > b2buas are not really defined so they can be intrusive and bad or a good thing > depending on what you need. In my experience, my company's product could not > provide some cool features to our customers without a b2bua as sems. > > For me, it offers topoh hiding, response mapping, codec filtering, session > timers, some accounting stuff, session duration limit and some sbc > capabilities. I agree that I would like to see the inteligence at endpoint > level but that's not true life. So yes, b2buas are necesary for me at this > point.
Right, but those are no intrusive features and are desirable when users talk to a PSTN gateway (as you need accounting, session timers, codec filtering and so). >> - ICE (RFC 5245): The best solution for NAT, validation of the peer >> (who is sending RTP to me?) and IPv4/IPv6 transition. > > As Ole mentioned and I discussed with him last week, ICE may break LI (lawful > interception) requirements for some vendors. It needs some switch to be able > to > disable it when LI is required. Then you can set a B2BUA in the middle of the call so the audio passes through the media address set by the B2BUA. >> - SRTP (RFC 3711): Why are we so happy with unencrypted audio/video media?? > > Because we're in closed networks. This is becoming more important each day as > federation, internet users and mobile device users come to the SIP world. The > TLS and SRTP/ZRTP requirements from my customers has increased this year 1000% Good. > Open SIP to the internet. Yes. Open which is already in place. SIP in internet > from scratch is a no go. Google talk, Skype and Facebook (with Skype > integration or whatever) have thousands of millions of users in advantage. But > if you start opening the wallet gardens, you'll start with millions of users > that don't know they already use SIP and corporate customers which means money > behind the protocol. You need to play poker with the cards you've been given. > > Must work: yes. I would drop the whole SIMPLE specification (all the RFCs) to > have some really functional. As it is now we won't have any compatible > federated presence mechanism ever. Just drop SIMPLE for presence. MSRP is not bad ;) > Must be safe: Agree. No doubts here. > > btw: This is becoming a mayor OT for this list, isn't it? Well, IMHO a conversation about current status of SIP world is good anywhere, even more in the maillist of an open source and nice SIP proxy ;) -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
