[Asterisk-Users] New Asterisk bounty: SIP simultaneous

[Olle E. Johansson]

Sunrise Ltd wrote:

> Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Well, I have users that get an account on my PBX.
>>
>>I really don't care how many phones they want to use,
>>hardware phones on their desktop or soft phones on their
>>laptop while travelling. It's still a user with one
> 
> account.
> 
> Two words: self provisioning.
Right.

>>Asterisk doesn't really bother with *users*, it has a
>>device-centric view of life, universe and propably
> 
> everything.
> 
> That's only partly correct. The queue management system
> has a user view, called agents, and agents can
> authenticate themselves independently from the device they
> are using and then attach themselves to call queues
> managed by Asterisk.

> However, for anything unrelated to queue management, you
> are correct in that Asterisk doesn't apply this concept
> there.
Agreed. I wasn't clear enough. Asterisk have users in many
places, but no centralized view of a "user".

> Still I disagree that parallel forking is the way to do
> this. I even disagree that it would introduce a user view.
> Instead it would water down the device view. So you go
> from an system with a very clean device view but without a
> universally applied user view to a system with a messy
> device view and still no user view.

I haven't said that parallel forking is my recommended
way of doing this. I've stated several times that it doesn't
really comply with the architecture of Asterisk, unless
done in an Asterisk-architecture friendly way :-)
And adding it will not solve the user dilemma, as you
say. I hope I did not say it that way. That was why
I brought up that we regardless of parallell forking
will have to look at the user and authentication architecture
of Asterisk.

> Not if you give them a means to provision it themselves.
> This can be as easy as an extension that asks for a PIN
> number and then executes a shell script.
Right. Please send samples of this so we can add it to the Wiki!


> If I had support for multiple registrations on one [peer]
> account, the
> [peer] would become a user account instead of a device
> 
> Well, that's an opinion.
> 
> I'd rather prefer to have a user layer on top and in
> addition to a device layer instead of trading one for the
> other.
Right, me too.


> This is how GSM works BTW, you have the IMEI which
> identifies the device and the IMSI which identifies the
> subscriber. A subscriber may be using the same IMSI on
> different devices, but the IMEI for each device is unique.
> The IMEI lives in the device. The IMSI lives on the SIM
> card.
Thats where we should go. [peer]s and [user]s being devices
(IMEI) and a new user architecture representing the IMSI.
We have accountcode now. It's not enough.


>>I guess that's why a lot of people ask for this function.
> 
> 
> No, people asking for this because "If all you have is a
> hammer, everything looks like a nail."
:-)

/O