Lets talk about SIP and IAX2 1. The good and bad of both 2. What is the better one and why 3. and any other information that maybe use full -- Best regards, Al Bochter Bochter Services (Voip PBX) Toll Free: 866-638-1254 EXT: 250 (Voip PBX) Free World DialUp: 780217 EXT: 250 (Voip) Cellular: 712-432-5401 http://www.BochterServices.com/?t=Email BUY and sell Coins, Silver and Gold http://www.bochterservices.com/?j=gold&t=email For new and used security items http://www.bochterservices.com/?j=store&t=email_security GOLD PLATING SERVICES http://www.bochterservices.com/?j=plating&t=email
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 06:51 -0400, Al Bochter wrote:> Lets talk about SIP and IAX2 > > 1. The good and bad of both > 2. What is the better one and why > 3. and any other information that maybe use full >like this? http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-IAX+versus+SIP
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:51:39AM -0400, Al Bochter wrote:> Lets talk about SIP and IAX2 > > 1. The good and bad of both > 2. What is the better one and why > 3. and any other information that maybe use fullLet's be more specific. For connecting phones? For interconnecting PBXs? Have you did some basic research? For the record, Asterisk will pass calls from SIP to IAX and vice-versaa. So the two can happily co-exist in the same installation. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir@jabber.org +972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com http://www.xorcom.com iax:guest@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir
iax using one port, that is good if going through firewalls and is efektive when trunking multiple calls, but not using tcp, so it is not so great (tunneling through ssh is not possible) iax using own jitterbuffer, that isn't interoperate with generic jitterbuffer used in SIP iax-iax configuration with user/peer/friends type is quite confusing iax debugging is not so easy as SIP with iax I have still problems with messages like: [Oct 26 12:58:30] NOTICE[11417]: chan_iax2.c:7075 socket_process: Peer 'wilder' is now TOO LAGGED (2014 ms)! [Oct 26 12:59:37] NOTICE[11415]: chan_iax2.c:7075 socket_process: Peer 'wilder' is now TOO LAGGED (2055 ms)! Al Bochter wrote:> Lets talk about SIP and IAX2 > > 1. The good and bad of both > 2. What is the better one and why > 3. and any other information that maybe use full >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Cotton [mailto:dcotton@linuxautrement.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:21 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] SIP v IAX2 > > > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 17:43 +0200, Pavel Jezek wrote: > > with SIP qualify, I can specify, what time in delay I will accept, > > with sip and setting qualify=3000 I can circumvent this > anoying messages > > (bacause delay in reply is about 2000ms, and I accept 3000ms) > > with iax, qualify is working different, so setting > qualify=3000 will > > "ping" peer every 3s, > > quite inconsistent, imho > > So are you saying that in your world two different things, created by > totally different people, must have the same configuration settings.- You will find DUNDi configuration a lot easier with IAX, although you can use SIP. - If you use SIP to route calls between Asterisk boxes, you will lose your caller id as SIP uses the From: number to authenitcate with. You will have to store the original caller id in an extra SIP header, and then pluck it out an the other end, if you want to preserve caller id. Yuck. IAX doesn't have this problem. Doug.
On 2006-10-26 09:21:20 -0700, Dave Cotton <dcotton@linuxautrement.com> said:> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 17:43 +0200, Pavel Jezek wrote: >> with SIP qualify, I can specify, what time in delay I will accept, >> with sip and setting qualify=3000 I can circumvent this anoying >> messages (bacause delay in reply is about 2000ms, and I accept 3000ms) >> with iax, qualify is working different, so setting qualify=3000 will >> "ping" peer every 3s, >> quite inconsistent, imho > > So are you saying that in your world two different things, created by > totally different people, must have the same configuration settings.Since they are incorporated in a single product which is doing the configuration, consistency where possible would be good...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olle E Johansson [mailto:oej@edvina.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:53 PM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] SIP v IAX2 > > > > 26 okt 2006 kl. 18.57 skrev Douglas Garstang: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dave Cotton [mailto:dcotton@linuxautrement.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:21 AM > >> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > >> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] SIP v IAX2 > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 17:43 +0200, Pavel Jezek wrote: > >>> with SIP qualify, I can specify, what time in delay I will accept, > >>> with sip and setting qualify=3000 I can circumvent this > >> anoying messages > >>> (bacause delay in reply is about 2000ms, and I accept 3000ms) > >>> with iax, qualify is working different, so setting > >> qualify=3000 will > >>> "ping" peer every 3s, > >>> quite inconsistent, imho > >> > >> So are you saying that in your world two different things, > created by > >> totally different people, must have the same configuration > settings. > > > > - You will find DUNDi configuration a lot easier with IAX, > although > > you can use SIP. > > - If you use SIP to route calls between Asterisk boxes, you will > > lose your caller id as SIP uses the From: number to authenitcate > > with. You will have to store the original caller id in an > extra SIP > > header, and then pluck it out an the other end, if you want to > > preserve caller id. Yuck. IAX doesn't have this problem. > > That is a configuration issue, not a protocol issue. You don't have > to configure Asterisk that way.If we configured it, such that a call coming into an Asterisk box was handled in the same manner as a call coming in from our PSTN gateway, then we would not be able to determine which was which. Right now that isn't a problem, but I have a strong feeling that it will lead to problems in future. Doug.