Re: [SR-Users] Replacing an ACME Packet Net-Net SBC

Hi Melanie, Now I'm curious about which tests are you mentioning. Also, Acme Packet/Oracle as many different SBCs models, which can be selected according with the customer's requirements. When talking about the infinite number of features I wasn't really thinking in H.323. Although, probably there were customers like you a couple of years ago that thought they wouldn't need some features and regret they didn't pick Acme Packet, after they received new requirements on their networks. Acme SBC can also route using any SIP message element. Just use an HMR and according with what you want, just add a Route header (as simple as that... :) ). Regarding traffic shaping, you can also do it based on media-profiles. Comparing traffic shaping with Acme Packet DoS protection doesn't make much sense. Their DoS is one of the features that made their SBC what it is now, the leader worldwide. And do you know what it means? It is tested against any tool out there performing attacks (more customers means more testing). Can you say the same about the ABC demo? One additional thing is that you can for sure say that when deploying a Acme Packet SBC you won't have issues interoperate with other vendors. This is not marketing material, again this is based on the number of customers/deployments that exists worldwide. Not to mention real HA (out-of-the-box), simple configuration (yeah, I've already implemented an P-CSCF using Kamailio and it was a mess...), transcoding, LI, etc. Hope it helps, Luis On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Melanie Pietersen &lt;melanie.pietersen.ml(a)gmail.com <mailto:melanie.pietersen.ml@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2/27/14 10:29 AM, Luis Silva wrote: Don't understand how is it possible to compare Kamailio with the Acme Packet SBC. Just to give an example, the DoS mechanism available on the AP SBC can't be compared with any other solution available on the market. You will also have HMRs, SIP Routing options out-of-the-box (like time of the day routing, sip method based, cost based, traffic classification based, lb, trunk group, enum,lrt, multistage, route header based, redirect, etc etc) and infinite number of features that you will for sure miss if you plan on making that replacement. Hi Luis, the acme product seems actually underperforming compared to Wladimir's SBC demo and measured by the technical capabilities I am interested in. What continues to confuse me is the apparent mixture of technical and marketing terms. The infinite number is respectably long but it includes many features I will not need like H.323 or appear to be marketing. For example it appears that ABC demo can route by any SIP message element, which is clearly superior and necessary, especially in a deployment with proprietary header fields. Even if it does not make such a long element-by-element feature list :). Similarly it includes several types of traffic shaping, which seems little different from the DoS protection offered by former Acme. Acme's multistage lookup you mentioned seems to be just a fix to quite imperfect design which didn't anticipate cascaded routing logic. I mean I am a little bit careful about assessing technological supremacy based on marketing material. Is there possibly some truly technical-based comparison? I tried to look it up in the archive but did not find some. Melanie _________________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> http://lists.sip-router.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-__users <http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users