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 1:38 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Dean >> Willis >> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:47 PM >> >> 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. > > That's not analogous and you know it, I think. We're not talking > about a transparent inline IP-layer ISP mucking about in the > application layer. > You're setting the SIP request URI host portion to your local > provider, not the far-end (because you almost never know the far-end > domain, and even if you did they won't accept your request > directly). Your SIP request really does almost always reach the > local provider identified by that URI domain directly first. Being > authoritative for that domain, they then route your request to > another domain, and so on, to reach an entity ultimately identified > by a phone number not a hostname. For another, you know and I know > that web-based communication is not like phone communication. In > many ways SIP is much closer to IM or Email than HTTP, except it > sometimes also costs money. Dude! This is the INTERNET engineering task force. You want private circuit switched networks, see the ITU. -- 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