31 Aug
2012
31 Aug
'12
1:12 p.m.
I think for a lot of customers its as much about commercial support from
vendors (basically the same story for all open source vs. commercial
solutions), as it is about technical choice.
SBCs are seen as a fix all perimeter control for VoIP. I think as we all
know there are many ways to solve a problem and architectural solutions for
VoIP "interconnect" can also be solved by placing the SBC infront of an
infrastructure (perimeter control) or as a border defence behind a
proxy/load-balancer.
In some instances its about simplicity. For example I deal with hosted
contact Centre environments built around commercial VoIP contact centre
solutions from Oracle and CosmoCom, for these it is simpler to place a
commercial SBC such as Acme, Sonus or even Cisco "CUBE" facing a carrier
SIP trunk interconnect. My customers have the assurance of vendor support
and I as a SME, I don't have put a significant amount of time and effort in
to supporting an Open Source solution. (Please don't flame me on this last
point). Whilst I would like to place Open Source products in this mix
(OpenSER/SER, SEMS, Asterisk, Freeswitch, etc) for some of my customers
they just don't want to go down that route.
Neill
Neill Wilkinson
Aeonvista Ltd
On 31 August 2012 10:52, Andreas Granig <agranig(a)sipwise.com> wrote:
On 08/31/2012 11:10 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
a
very long time.
For SEMS it's a commercial module, same goes for the Sipwise mediaproxy
for seemless RTP stream fail-over. That's still where open source people
earn their money :)
Andreas
_______________________________________________
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
Sbc also
ofer a propritary way of failover for itself
If node1 die node2 will replace it
That's been done both with Asterisk and Kamailio (and propably SEMS) for