In theory, this sounds appealing. But we have had a lot of problems with SEMS performance and stability with a large number of calls. We are rather fond of the proxy-based approach because it works, and works well.
-- This message was painstakingly thumbed out on my mobile, so apologies for brevity, errors, and general sloppiness. Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ On Oct 10, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Juha Heinanen <j...@tutpro.com> wrote: > Alex Balashov writes: > >> Stateless replies have that name for a reason; they lack state. They >> don't trigger any TM callbacks that the dialog module can latch onto. >> So, figuring out how to remove a dialog to which a stateless final >> failure reply has been sent is actually quite difficult, and requires >> significant architectural changes. > > one can always use sems to limit number of simultaneous calls (see > cc_pcalls sbc module). > > lets face it: if you want to be dialog aware, it is better to do it with > right tool (= sbc) than to try to twist sip proxy to do something that > it is not by definition good for. > > once you have bitten the bullet, you can easily handle rtp proxying, > topology hiding, reliable accounting, anonymity, etc. with one single > tool. > > -- juha > > _______________________________________________ > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list > sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
