3 Nov
2008
3 Nov
'08
7:56 p.m.
El Lunes, 3 de Noviembre de 2008, Andreas Sikkema escribió:
Compared to H.323 SIP is cobbled together by a couple
of monkeys who
only knew how to speak HTTP and had heard of a planet in a galaxy far,
far away called Telefonis where people talked to each other using tin
cans.
<ironic>
Of course, that should be the reason why all the new implementations use H.323
instead of SIP.
</ironic>
Calling protocol names is not productive. Separating
media from the
signaling might theoretically by a "correct" concept, in practice
there's much to be said for combining them.
Well, if you think that combining signalling and media is a cool feature then
I have no more to add.
Yes, NAT exists and it's a pain, but that is not reason to go back to earliest
years of the telephony. Maybe you think that IAX is better than SIP
because "it's better for NAT", but that's not true: IAX requires
signalling
and media going together while with SIP you can decide it (you can use
several methods to resolve NAT, like STUN, Comedia mode in UAS, RTP
proxies...).
If you have your proxy/PBX in Tokio and two subscribers talk in Australia:
1) With SIP audio can go directly between them (so no latency).
2) With IAX audio must go to Tokio and come back.
Since we are speaking about realtime communications I hope you agree with me
that second option is not very suitable, do you?
I agree that, anyway, SIP is complex, and the worst, it could be designed
simpler. But at least, SIP is extensible and customizable, while IAX/H.323 is
like a stone.
Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo