Juha Heinanen wrote:
Klaus Darilion writes:
> Any comments regarding including of the domainpolicy module into CVS?
> Please speak or I will commit ;-)
i don't have any comment about including the code in openser, but i have
some comments about the idea itself.
great - we are happy to get comments
first, i read some of the related i-ds and found the stuff very
complicated. how realistic it is that operators would start using dns
to describe their policies and query them from there?
It is a trade of between public SIP URIs and private peering factories.
Currently peering between SIP providers happens in 3 scenarios:
- open SIP URIs (like iptel.org, fwd ...): this wont be used by big carriers
- TDM interconnect: that's the worst solution, but currently the most used
- private peering fabrics (xconnect, ...)
Currently, ITSPs which do want to peer via SIP but do not want public
SIP URIs because they want some kind of security/authenication/control
have to use private fabrics (operated by 3rd parties).
Our idea helps by putting federation membership into public DNS, whereas
ingress points can be public or private. And no need for 3rd party
peering fabrics.
Honestly I would be very happy if I can put this module into the thrash
because carriers start using open SIP URIs.
i find it very bad if internet gets split into closed communities that
only talk with each other via pstn. why would sip be any different
from, say, email, or the plan to implement the same policy stuff also
carriers won't use public URIs in the next year. I am worried too.
for email? if so, what is the backup way, because pstn cannot handle
email?
That's the advantage of VoIP peering - there is a backup route via the PSTN.
Regarding Email: Here the main problem (also like in SIP) is
authentication. That's wy I'm eagerly waiting for domainkeys.
regards
klaus
-- juha
--
Klaus Darilion
nic.at
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
