[SIPForum-techwg] SIPConnect 1.1: REGISTER support MUSTat SIP-PBX

[David Hancock]

I'd like to 2nd Chris's point. As a service provider, I want to be able
to deploy large numbers of SIP-PBXs within enterprise networks where
they're assigned dynamic IP addresses via DHCP. The compelling case for
SIP-registration is that it provides a proven reliable scalable
mechanism to establish the SIP routing path within the service provider
network to the SIP-PBX. The static mode doesn't provide an equivalent
mechanism.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On
> Behalf Of Chris Gatch
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:21 PM
> To: Johnston, Alan B (Alan); Theo Zourzouvillys
> Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPConnect 1.1: REGISTER support MUSTat
> SIP-PBX
> 
> 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.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> 
> Theo,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.  See mine below marked AJ>
> 
> Thanks,
> Alan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> SIP-PBX
> 
> 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.
> 
> > There
> > 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
> way.
> 
>  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.
> 
> 
>  ~ Theo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg