davidn at davidnewall.com
Thu Jul 4 13:40:49 EST 2013
On 04/07/13 11:34, Jeremy Visser wrote:
> What I think David is visualising is a more peer-to-peer based SIP
> setup, which is*far* harder to implement (and certainly darn near
> impossible to monetise, which is why you don't see any traction for P2P
> SIP from businesses developing VoIP solutions).
My very brief reading gives me to understand that SIP is peer to peer,
and that what we've called a "SIP server" provides rendezvous and
hand-over to logged-in peers (handsets.)
The message to take away is that SIP is always peer-to-peer.
I won't insist this is how it works because, as admitted, I've never
done one of these and my reading is consequently incomplete. Perhaps
someone who has done this could join the conversation?
Business developing VoIP solutions have no direct benefit from per-call
charging (let's not use invented words, such as monetise, when there are
perfectly good words that have been used for hundreds of years) as their
interest stops at hardware sale, installation and maintenance. Carriers
have a vested interest in quashing adoption of SIP because of the
oft-raised revenue which they wouldn't be able to collect. They get
away with it because they convince us that everybody needs a number,
even though SIP-users don't. I might have made that point a few times
More information about the linux-aus