On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 14:20 -0400, Dan Mongrain wrote: > Regarding number (2), instead of having different ports to demultiplex > incoming traffic, couldn't sipXecs utilize a "virtual name space" > mechanism (I do not know if there is a correct term for this, but it is > similar to Apache's virtual web service which looks at the network name > of the URL to determine the page to serve). An INVITE received on port > 5060 to j...@example1.com would go to a different "virtual sipXecs" then > an INVITE to j...@example2.org. Apache achieves this the same way, the > initial GET is sent to port 80 at the same IP address but Apache looks > at the URL to determine what page to serve. > > 5060 is the well-known port for SIP and I think that any implementation > of multi-tenant should support concurrent requests on it.
We've really gotten away from content appropriate to the sipx-users list; let's move this topic to sipx-dev now. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
