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@sipwise.com> wrote:

On 08/31/2012 11:10 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> 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 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@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users