Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Apr 1, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > > And I doubt that every VoIP SP will be meshed with every other VoIP > SP. So in > many situations there will be a transit SP or two along the path. > The PSTN > has transit service providers (my local phone company is not directly > connected with the phone company in Syria or India), and the > Internet has > transit service providers (some little ISP in Wyoming is not directly > connected with a little ISP in Switzerland). But the transit ISP should be routing the packets using their source and destination IP addresses, not mucking about in the application protocol. If some backbone ISP started putting in transparent HTTP proxies that diverted Web traffic to alternate sites, we'd have a "peasants with torches" scenario. Same for most of the media-steering cases: The traffic is IP. Route it like IP traffic and stop pretending to be a circuit switched phone! Doing application-sensitive packet routing is a direct path to chaos and unmanageable operational complexity. Or maybe we should have just defined SIP-over-MPLS and left out the whole IP middle layer? -- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip