Ah, but that is why we have Mike. Those complicated systems need a top notch Engineer, Author and just all around fast driver to show them how to correctly engineer the goezinda' and goezoutta' of the network. What's that line - we don't need no stinkin' CAC, we got Mike to watch our BACK.
I agree, Nirvana is always great, and I'm sure the developers would love to have someone create the solution and donate it to the project. In the meantime, we cobble together with what we have like everyone else, and make fun of good ol' Mike. Cheers! -----Original Message----- From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Mark Dutton Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:18 AM To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Feature request: Admission control These are all good points, but it doesn't help when you are not using a gateway device with limited resources, or an ITSP who blocks the nth call. What about when you have multi site setup where you have handsets in the field? What about where you have a multi-site sipXecs deployment with a sipXecs proxy at each site and they new to communicate between each other. In both of those scenarios, you have the potential to flood your link. The only way you could get a firewall to create control of this would be if it was a layer 7 firewall that intercepted the SIP requests and sent back a 4xx failure to the calling end. I don't see this happening any time soon and it would lead to a raft of compatibility issues and finger pointing when there were interop problems. -- Regards Mark Dutton _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
