[hydra-dev] Demo for astricon

[Tim Panton]

On 5 Aug 2010, at 20:08, Russell Bryant wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:26 -0700, John Todd wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Tim Panton wrote:
>>> I also thought about some sort of viral propagation concept,
>>> this might need to be licenseing based (as with DUNDi) where
>>> the expectation is all hydra instances can (by default) talk to each
>>> other over the net.
>> 
>> This is a really great idea!  However, should we restrict to E.164?   
>> There are some pretty hefty considerations to be made about what data  
>> would be exchanged between systems, and what, exactly, would be the  
>> protocol.  DUNDi is the obvious choice for number-based meshing.  What  
>> about non-E.164?  SIP URIs don't seem to need any mesh ideas - they  
>> have the DNS, and that works quite well.  XMPP is in the same boat.   
>> Freenum.org/ISN is in the same boat.  So really, I suppose I've  
>> answered my own question - only E.164 numbers would probably be  
>> considered (or private E.164 numbers or sub-numbers, but those  
>> wouldn't be meshed publicly.)
> 
> DUNDi with E.164 in Asterisk never seemed to take off.  Digium isn't
> even a peer in that network anymore as far as I know.  I suspect the
> E.164 DUNDi network may be completely gone at this point.  What could be
> done differently to make it not fail like it did before?  If there is
> something that could be done, why hasn't it been done already for
> Asterisk?  I'm just asking the questions because I think it would be a
> good retrospective to have to ensure we understand what didn't go well
> before.
> 
> DUNDi has been very successful for private usage, though.  However,
> Hydra's architecture and native interfaces will provide what DUNDi
> provides to Asterisk in those areas.
> 

That was rather more what I was thinking. 
Something on the lines of a standardized public service  that
all hydra's offer, permitting hydras to discover and call one another.

The minimum data this service might offer would be the equivalent of
an '800 number (possibly mapped to the 800 number).

I wasn't thinking of actually using DUNDi protocol. ICE over TLS on port 443
should be pretty NAT -proof.

I suppose I'm really thinking of trying to mimic the 'go-anywhere' power
of skype, but in opensource and de-centralized.

I really can't claim to have thought this through  :-)

As to why Dundi failed - because it was an optional add-on and the agreement was 
scary.

T.


Tim Panton - Web/VoIP consultant and implementor
www.westhawk.co.uk