7 Feb
2006
7 Feb
'06
12:51 a.m.
Hello
I believe the "must" was to emphasize the position of the SBC in the
architecture :)
What I want to know is what software can I use to make the SBC job. A
B2BUA? Is vovida B2BUA the solution to substitute the SBC?
Is the payed version of SER the best solution?
My SER has a public IP, routable from the Internet..... is this an
acceptable solution? Im going to deploy a very large VoIP network. Can I
trust in a PBX available from the Internet???
From the pdf in attachment, I see that SBCs are not only a solution for
clients, they are also a solution for telcos. For registering a lot of
client SBCs, and for registering a lot of phones. Is the open source
solution (I mean SER/Asterisk/B2BUA/RTPproxy) being used in telcos?
Thanks
Joao Pereira
With all respect I would urge people not to use words like "must" if there is
no prove for necessity. As long as I have a counterproof -- most of our customers
under our consultancy, very big ISPs among those, actually don't use SBCs -- it is
very easy to show how mistaken such a statement is and how optional these boxes are.
I would actually be easy to go much further. SBCs cause lot of pain. In the field
some SBCs disconnected lot of subscribers because they are single point of failure and
they fail. (Even if you have a pair, given the fact that both pair members use the
same software and software failure is one of the most frequesnt failure causes,
it happens that the complete pair fails.)
Other SBCs, faithful to the principle "to be safe, filter all things you don't
understand"
filtered useful valid traffic which SBC's implementors didn't foresee/understand.
Which successfuly prohibited use of messaging/presence services.
I would consider money put in SBCs a poor investment. I think companies that give
the money to education and bonuses of their administrative IT personal will meet
better operational results.
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
At 07:54 PM 2/6/2006, Michael Heckner wrote:
Hi Joao,
Joao Pereira schrieb:
No.
With all respect I would urge people not to use words like "must" if there is
no prove for necessity. As long as I have a counterproof -- most of our customers
under our consultancy, very big ISPs among those, actually don't use SBCs -- it is
very easy to show how mistaken such a statement is and how optional these boxes are.
I would actually be easy to go much further. SBCs cause lot of pain. In the field
some SBCs disconnected lot of subscribers because they are single point of failure and
they fail. (Even if you have a pair, given the fact that both pair members use the
same software and software failure is one of the most frequesnt failure causes,
it happens that the complete pair fails.)
Other SBCs, faithful to the principle "to be safe, filter all things you don't
understand"
filtered useful valid traffic which SBC's implementors didn't foresee/understand.
Which successfuly prohibited use of messaging/presence services.
I would consider money put in SBCs a poor investment. I think companies that give
the money to education and bonuses of their administrative IT personal will meet
better operational results.
-jiri
Hi,
As many of you may know, we are undertaking several tests in order to test
the interoperability between several PBX IP from different vendors. Until
now, we were trusting that the VoIP IP PBX were good enough to be
interconnected directly, however, one of the vendors have presented the "SBC"
concept.
The "SBC" (Session Border Controller) is not a new concept since we were
using it anyway when we setup a (Asterisk+SER+SIP Proxy) Box to handle the
"on-net dialout" calls.
I'm now overwhelmed with the amount of SBCs that are suggested by the vendors
to implement a solution.
(http://www.juniper.net/solutions/literature/solutionbriefs/351085.pdf)
Can anyone drop me some lines about this? I urgently need some feedback on
this.
the SBC must be present whenever you leave your IP network.
If you deal with residential users, and you work
with a SIP Proxy, you want to hide your proxy and your internal topology from the outside.
So you need an SBC there, or, speaking more precisly, one interface of the SBC must
concentrate the external network traffic,
The same is true, when you do interconnection with other carriers, instead of publishing
the IP address of your proxy, you provide them with (another) IP address assigned to an
interface of the SBC.
The amount of SBC is dependng on the expected network traffic, and the amount of
interfaces, you require. Some boxes work perfectly with logical interfaces, i.e. assign
multiple IP addresses to a single physical interface.
I propose to do detailed network and traffic engineering to ensure that you select an
appropriate solution.
Hope this helps.
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Thanks!
Joao Pereira www.fccn.pt
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers