10 Jan
2008
10 Jan
'08
9:18 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 20:10 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Jueves, 10 de Enero de 2008, Jerome Martin
escribió:
What, you're not even arguing ? :-) You're too kind.
But seriously, this is a pretty hot subject, and I've never met anyone
suggesting the same as I did here, most of the time I hear the same
thing about rtpproxy + CDRs reliability.
I'm sure some people are challenging what I wrote right now, in their
mind ! If we are lucky, we'll even get emails !
Disclaimer: the above paragraph was not meant to start a flame war on
the topic between SST/pinging schools and RTP detection ones. At worst,
the two techniques can really complement each other.
Regards,
--
Jérôme Martin | LongPhone
Responsable Architecture Réseau
122, rue la Boetie | 75008 Paris
Tel : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 44
Fax : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 45
Mail : jmartin(a)longphone.fr
Web : www.longphone.com <http://www.longphone.com>
To summarize, I'd say that if you rely on RTP
detection for billing,
then you have the following limitations :
- unreliable problem detection
- stuck with RTP proxying for ALL calls
- problems with VAD
- problems in corner cases with re INVITES changing the RTP stream
extremities
What do you think ?
I think that I should thank to you for a great explanation ;)