Greger Viken Teigre wrote:
> I would just suggest that you try to stay as distro-independent as
> possible, i.e. make it easy to switch to another distro and make it
> easy for people to bootstrap on another distro by looking at the
> dependencies (and maybe contribute their bootstrap script :-).
>
> As for config file, the ser-oob.cfg and ser.cfg that is generated by
> the buildsystem (sip_router/etc/buildsystem) are quite close. The
> buildsystem has a configure script that can be run as part of the
> bootstrap (it creates an m4 config file for local) or a web-based
> front-end can generate the config file quite easily.
> As I'm the maintainer of the buildsystem, I can promise some support
> if the system needs some adaption or the config file needs updating.
> I cannot speak for ser-oob.cfg, but as the idea is to show-case the
>
iptel.org free SIP service config, I assume it will be more static.
>
> See config buildsystem docs:
>
http://www.iptel.org/sip_express_router_configuration_buildsystem
>
> I'll follow the discussions and contribute where and when I can.
> g-)
>
> SIP wrote:
>> If no one else is going to come forward and second/debate Mike's
>> suggestion to use FC, and Mike's the man with the server, then I declare
>> this project officially FC-based.
>>
>> These are the people that have so far contacted me and are verified for
>> working on the SER Bundle Project, and for what tasks I have them available:
>>
>> Jai Rangi -- kickstart work in FC
>> Arun Kumar -- flexible
>> Samuel -- some time/flexible
>> ram -- testing
>> Mike Trest -- server, testing, FC wrangling
>>
>> Tasks we still need to fill (some of which can be filled perhaps by the
>> people listed above as flexible or others in the project):
>>
>> Core:
>> -SERWeb install/config
>> -RTP Proxy install/config (for base RTP proxy package -- not strictly
>> SER config)
>> -SEMS w/voicemail, away announcement, and conferencing support
>> install/config
>>
>> Tools:
>> All tools (ser_ctl, sipsak, tcpdump/ngrep, wireshark/tshark, sipp,
>> sip_scenario, spyagent+sipspy
>>
>> Also, with no install package for SER with a basic config, SER itself
>> will have to be installed/scripted to install with a tailored
>> config(ser-oob.cfg) for the correct system/parameters. I'm ASSUMING that
>> will go into the basic core install scripts, so I didn't add it in up
>> there, but if this is an invalid assumption, someone has to let me know
>>
>>
>> As you can see, if you're interested in being a part of this project and
>> can contribute time to getting it going, there are plenty of areas left
>> where we need people to help. Just let me know, and I'll add you to the
>> list.
>>
>>
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>> Neil Fusillo wrote:
>>
>>> As long as the environment can be built to be stable, I'm in complete
>>> agreement. While our initial adopters may be the tinkerers and the
>>> risk-takers, I'd say that a good number of those people already try out
>>> SER (and may ultimately choose something with less of a learning
>>> curve). The biggest market for a SER bundle in the long run is going to
>>> be those who want to get a carrier grade SIP proxy up and running
>>> quickly and easily. Who that might be is somewhat difficult to
>>> determine, but I dare say we don't want to position ourselves as
>>> building a bundle for those who're willing to take risks. ;)
>>>
>>> That said, the decision for CentOS came about because it is simply a
>>> GPL-compliant duplicate distro of Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- the single
>>> most common and most popular distribution amongst people who run linux
>>> in a carrier-grade situation.
>>>
>>> Fedora Core, being the test bed for RHEL, has the same structure but
>>> newer, slightly less-vetted packages. However, if we can ensure
>>> stability, then none of that matters and no one will really care what
>>> distro it's built upon (as long as it's familiar to the admins who
>>> manage it). If you say you can build a stable FC-based SER server, then
>>> I say we go for it.
>>>
>>> Do we have a second to Mike's motion to use FC as the base distro?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Trest - Personal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This is to summarize my opinions about FC* distro use.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, I think FC* is best selection as it contains many more fixes
>>>> than does the older CENTOS (based on 5). I have deployed several
>>>> hundred FC* boxes in VoIP applications. This is over 10,000 active
>>>> ports without "Enterprise" stability issues.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO this project needs the quickest path to the Enterprise community
>>>> regardless of the OS/distro used.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the ultimate question is who is our target? Ourselves,
>>>> naturally. However, I suggest our target is not the bankers or
>>>> major corporations with lots of rules and procedures. That group
>>>> will never adopt SER until they have a commercial-grade support
>>>> system to advise their IT folks what to do for every question they may have.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO our initial target is those early adopters who are trying to
>>>> create new businesses in telecomm or consulting-on-telecom. We want
>>>> them to have a solid core that they can leverage into their new
>>>> appliances and specialized applications.
>>>>
>>>> The early adopters are risk-takers (This means us as well!) They
>>>> demand an open box in which they can face the SIP world with some
>>>> assurance of standards compliance while at the same time they can
>>>> face their clients with something better, faster, cheaper, and
>>>> innovative enough to get paid well for their efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Making a technology "buy - in" decision at any point in time is only
>>>> a check point - not a final resting place. IMHO, we are better off
>>>> selecting an OS/distro effort that has a large share of both early
>>>> adopters and long term commercial support - - - so long as it meets
>>>> our current and future technical **AND** target market
>>>> requirements. Research confirms that the RH/FC community is the
>>>> largest community with name recognition and respect among both the
>>>> "geek-innovator" community as well as the Enterprise community.
>>>>
>>>> ..mike..
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Serusers mailing list
>>>>
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
>>>>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>>
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
>>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers