3 Nov
2008
3 Nov
'08
10:19 a.m.
Is there a proxy IAX ?
Openser can do it ?
Thank you
Cordialement
BERGANZ François
3 Nov
3 Nov
10:24 a.m.
BERGANZ François wrote:
Is there a proxy IAX ?
Openser can do it ?
OpenSER is a pure SIP proxy.
Cheers,
ARIF
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proxy-IAX---tp20299450p20299505.html
Sent from the OpenSER Users Mailing List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:30 a.m.
Ok,
But I still use opensips for sips,
And I am looking for an IAX proxy. Know you someone ?
Cordialement
BERGANZ François
-----Message d'origine-----
De : users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org] De la part
de arif.zaman
Envoyé : lundi 3 novembre 2008 10:24
À : users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Objet : Re: [Kamailio-Users] Proxy IAX ?
BERGANZ François wrote:
Is there a proxy IAX ?
Openser can do it ?
OpenSER is a pure SIP proxy.
Cheers,
ARIF
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proxy-IAX---tp20299450p20299505.html
Sent from the OpenSER Users Mailing List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
11:12 a.m.
On Monday 03 November 2008 09:30:31 BERGANZ François wrote:
Ok,
But I still use opensips for sips,
And I am looking for an IAX proxy. Know you someone ?
Only Asterisk and derivates could be used as "IAX Proxy", taking into account
that IAX it's a protocol that does not implement the concept of "proxy", it
only knows about end-points
--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual S.L.
12:27 p.m.
El Lunes, 3 de Noviembre de 2008, BERGANZ François escribió:
Ok,
But I still use opensips for sips,
And I am looking for an IAX proxy. Know you someone ?
IAX is a pseudo-protocol designed by his author just to become "cool".
First of all, IAX doesn't separe signalling and media, instead both go
together via the same UDP flow.
IAX is not a professional protocol and it's just used to interconnect two
Asterisk (that can be interconnected also with SIP, of course). IAX makes no
sense in this world.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
7:11 p.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
IAX is a pseudo-protocol designed by his author just
to become "cool".
First of all, IAX doesn't separe signalling and media, instead both go
together via the same UDP flow.
Not necessarily - one can separate the signaling from the media.
IAX is not a professional protocol and it's just
used to interconnect two
Asterisk (that can be interconnected also with SIP, of course). IAX makes no
sense in this world.
This is your opinion... there are many CLECs and even ILECs leveraging IAX.
Jeremy McNamara
7:34 p.m.
El Lunes, 3 de Noviembre de 2008, Jeremy McNamara escribió:
I don't know what a CLEC or ILEC is, but I already know that there are some
deskphones supporting IAX. This is completely useless, as having an analog
line.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
I've already listened the same before, but never seen real data about it. In
fact, the IAX draft says clearly that it uses the same UDP flow for
signalling and media.
IAX is a pseudo-protocol designed by his author
just to become "cool".
First of all, IAX doesn't separe signalling and media, instead both go
together via the same UDP flow.
Not necessarily - one can separate the signaling from the media. IAX is not a
professional protocol and it's just used to interconnect two
Asterisk (that can be interconnected also with SIP, of course). IAX makes
no sense in this world.
This is your opinion... there are many CLECs and even ILECs leveraging IAX. 
8:12 p.m.
On Nov 3, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
IAX is a pseudo-protocol designed by his author just
to become "cool".
First of all, IAX doesn't separe signalling and media, instead both go
together via the same UDP flow.
IAX is not a professional protocol and it's just used to
interconnect two
Asterisk (that can be interconnected also with SIP, of course). IAX
makes no
sense in this world.
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.
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. Every time I hear someone
call anything "not professional" I get the feeling it must be
something very good because this person feels threatened by it and the
net result of that statement is the opposite -)
--
Andreas Sikkema
8:16 p.m.
Andreas Sikkema wrote:
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.
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. Every time I hear someone
call anything "not professional" I get the feeling it must be
something very good because this person feels threatened by it and the
net result of that statement is the opposite -)
Lord knows I am not going to defend H.323, but I agree with you
completely...
Jeremy McNamara
8:56 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
4 Nov
4 Nov
5:27 a.m.
Andreas Sikkema <h323(a)ramdyne.nl> wrote:
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. Every time I hear someone
call anything "not professional" I get the feeling it must be
something very good because this person feels threatened by it and the
net result of that statement is the opposite -)
Wiser words are rarely spoken. I would like to quote you on this. :)
--
"the lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne."
-- Chaucer.
5655
days inactive
5656
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Andreas Sikkema -
arif.zaman -
BERGANZ François -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Jeremy McNamara -
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana -
Sajith T S