Hi Everyone,<div><br></div><div>After reading the full chain of mails, I who is currently implementing RFC 3263 feels bit confused. I am not facing any major problems implementing it. Can i request to give me some points which are dicey and I need to take care of them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>cheers!!!!</div><div>sarvpriya<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Olle E. Johansson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:oej@edvina.net">oej@edvina.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
26 feb 2009 kl. 18.27 skrev Daniel-Constantin Mierla:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> On 02/26/2009 07:08 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:<br>
>> 2009/2/26 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <<a href="mailto:miconda@gmail.com">miconda@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>><br>
>>> However, being out there so many phones without such support, it is<br>
>>> practically unusable since service providers won't deploy<br>
>>> different server<br>
>>> solutions for each group of devices, so they stick to one size<br>
>>> fits all and<br>
>>> that is not DNS for now.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> Devices don't implement it, so service providers don't implement it,<br>
>> so devices don't implement it, so... XD<br>
>><br>
> I think the sip server implementations are pretty good here. Besides<br>
> that, for client interaction it is required only DNS server<br>
> configuration, nothing in sip server.<br>
><br>
> What I meant is the headache for sip server providers to deploy two<br>
> different fault tolerant solution:<br>
> - one based on DNS<br>
> - one based on shared/virtual IP or load balancer<br>
><br>
> Each of them will require maintenance, man power, etc... Anyway, even<br>
> with second option, good DNS in phones does not harm.<br>
<br>
</div>A problem here is of course the good old NAT issue. Even if the phones<br>
have<br>
DNS support, having a NAT in between the phone and a provider's server<br>
more or less force a provider to use some IP failover solution to be<br>
able<br>
to keep the NAT binding.<br>
<br>
DNS helps with failover and some load balancing from the client side,<br>
so it's a good complement.<br>
<br>
I have not yet received requests for NAPTR support in Asterisk, even<br>
though<br>
with our recent baby steps into the TLS/TCP world, we really do need<br>
them.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
/O<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Sip-implementors mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu">Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors" target="_blank">https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>cheers!!!!<br>sarvpriya<br>
</div>