[sr-dev] RFC 5626 (Outbound) planned?

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

2011/10/11 Jon Bonilla <manwe at aholab.ehu.es>:
>>
>> SBCs exist because they offer "some services" like for example... hum?
>> and due the fact that no vendor implements SIP security at all.
>>
>
> b2buas are not really defined so they can be intrusive and bad or a good thing
> depending on what you need. In my experience, my company's product could not
> provide some cool features to our customers without a b2bua as sems.
>
> For me, it offers topoh hiding, response mapping, codec filtering, session
> timers, some accounting stuff, session duration limit and some sbc
> capabilities. I agree that I would like to see the inteligence at endpoint
> level but that's not true life. So yes, b2buas are necesary for me at this
> point.

Right, but those are no intrusive features and are desirable when
users talk to a PSTN gateway (as you need accounting, session timers,
codec filtering and so).


>> - ICE (RFC 5245): The best solution for NAT, validation of the peer
>> (who is sending RTP to me?) and IPv4/IPv6 transition.
>
> As Ole mentioned and I discussed with him last week, ICE may break LI (lawful
> interception) requirements for some vendors. It needs some switch to be able to
> disable it when LI is required.

Then you can set a B2BUA in the middle of the call so the audio passes
through the media address set by the B2BUA.



>> - SRTP (RFC 3711): Why are we so happy with unencrypted audio/video media??
>
> Because we're in closed networks. This is becoming more important each day as
> federation, internet users and mobile device users come to the SIP world. The
> TLS and SRTP/ZRTP requirements from my customers has increased this year 1000%

Good.



> Open SIP to the internet. Yes. Open which is already in place. SIP in internet
> from scratch is a no go. Google talk, Skype and Facebook (with Skype
> integration or whatever) have thousands of millions of users in advantage. But
> if you start opening the wallet gardens, you'll start with millions of users
> that don't know they already use SIP and corporate customers which means money
> behind the protocol. You need to play poker with the cards you've been given.
>
> Must work: yes. I would drop the whole SIMPLE specification (all the RFCs) to
> have some really functional. As it is now we won't have any compatible
> federated presence mechanism ever.

Just drop SIMPLE for presence. MSRP is not bad ;)


> Must be safe: Agree. No doubts here.
>
> btw: This is becoming a mayor OT for this list, isn't it?

Well, IMHO a conversation about current status of SIP world is good
anywhere, even more in the maillist of an open source and nice SIP
proxy ;)



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc at aliax.net>