[SIPForum-techwg] SIPConnect 1.1: REGISTER support MUST at SIP-PBX
Chris.Gatch at cbeyond.net
Tue Feb 3 16:21:06 EST 2009
The main difference between registration and dynamic DNS is that registration is broadly implemented under SIPconnect 1.0. It is an essential component of interoperability in most current deployments of SIPconnect. It works and works well. I am personally pleased with 1.1v03 that provides for static and registration modes. We need both.
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Johnston, Alan B (Alan)
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:22 PM
To: Theo Zourzouvillys
Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPConnect 1.1: REGISTER support MUST at SIP-PBX
Thanks for your comments. See mine below marked AJ>
From: Theo Zourzouvillys [mailto:theo at crazygreek.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Johnston, Alan B (Alan)
Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPConnect 1.1: REGISTER support MUST at
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Johnston, Alan B (Alan)
<abjohnston at avaya.com> wrote:
> implies an incorrect master/slave relationship
In what way does using REGISTER create a master/slave relationship
that other rendezvous methods don't (p2p excluded, i assume :))?
AJ> I don't mean P2P but I do mean peering. The real model between a
service provider and a PBX is a peering relationship, and peers don't
register with each other.
> are other solutions such as dynamic DNS for situations where this can
> not be achieved.
I fail see the differences between REGISTER and dynamic DNS - they
both archive identical things - updating a database?
anyhow, how would this be as a solution to what you believe is the
pathological NAT & dynamic IP address cases in a standards and optimal
a SIP-PBX MUST support TLS, and MUST be configurable to always keeps
an active mutually TLS authenticated connection open, which it will
re-open if closed.
... nice and easy for the SIP-PBX to implement, and then the SSP can
do all the grunt work to make it work in real world deployments :-)
AJ> I am not suggesting dynamic DNS as a real solution to this problem
- I'm just pointing out that the NAT problem is not unique to Internet
Communications, and there may be other solutions at other layers of the
stack. I agree in the presence of NAT it would be useful to maintain a
connection between the Service Provider and IP-PBX. I'm not sure how to
specify this exactly.
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at: http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
More information about the techwg