11 Jan
2008
11 Jan
'08
3:39 a.m.
Jerome,
In my opinion it depends on the policy of the VoIP provider rather than
on technical issues.
Proper implementation of RFC 4028 of all involved UACs might render RTP
analysis useless, if it's in line with the policy of the the VoIP
provider to have some minutes of tolerance in their CDRs in case of
missing BYEs (the tolerance can be controlled by the provider via the
defined headers). If that is still unacceptable by a provider, there
maybe should be some SIP/RTP-aware billing engines in place though.
Andreas
Jerome Martin wrote:
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, 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 ;)