23 Apr
2014
23 Apr
'14
7:04 p.m.
On Apr 23, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Antonio Querubin
<tony(a)lavanauts.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
That's ENUM, not DNS SRV, and again, not necessary. I know of very
few software SIP clients that don't allow SIP URI dialing. No need
for numerics whatsoever. I can dial alphanumeric user@host from any
number of clients.
I also addressed the numeric hardware endpoints, such as desk phones
and ATAs. I have "translated" numeric dialing to SIP URI dialing for
years using the Asterisk dialplan.
exten => 234,1,Dial(SIP/ke4rap(a)ke4rap.ampr.org).
We don't NEED and should absolutely NOT develop some horrible kludge
of a numeric schema for number <> callsign translation. If I have
numeric-only endpoints I can address those in MY dialplan. Ultimately
on the wire calls should be going peer-to-peer with user@host SIP
URI's and only require DNS A and CNAME's for routing.
DM
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Danny Messano wrote:
necessary, obviously, for the call to be delivered. But, I don't
need a SRV record to tell the world I am hosting SIP at
ke4rap.ampr.org when that's the de facto destination for a call for
ke4rap.
And therein lies the problem. The rest of the SIP world doesn't make that kind of
assumption any more so than assuming reaching (123)456-7890 is done by making a SIP call
to a de facto destination of 1234567890(a)1234567890.ampr.org. Seriously?
Unless you want to spend unnecessary time coding this kind of assumption into various SIP
software, yeah you do need SRV. Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony(a)lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin(a)gmail.com
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net