[Dundi] Gizmo and DUNDI

Thu Jul 7 13:50:22 CDT 2005

the next version will have ability to add multiple proxies. We just 
didn't get it in time for this beta. One of the challenges of course is 
that we want to continue to do smart NAT/firewall penetration. Stun 
isn't enough as you probably know. How do you allow other proxies, but 
still do smart network traversal? It's a bit tricky.

You can dial any sip url from Gizmo, just enter in the fully qualified 
uri like this:
    sip:user at proxy.domain.com

I just checked and you can add to addressbook as well, but it doesn't 
seem to be dialing correctly. That's clearly a bug. You should and wil 
be able to dial any URI or enter it into addressbook.

Yes, it's true we're not using e.164 numbers ourselves. We actually 
likely will have an overlay of some sorts, but you'll see why making up 
a private number makes sense as we announce some of the partnerships we 
have in the works. A private number and enum can peacefully co-exist.

-- MR

John Todd wrote:

> At 4:32 PM -0700 on 7/6/05, Michael Robertson wrote:
>
>> DUNDI peeps,
>>
>> We just released beta of Gizmo Project at 
>> <http://www.gizmoproject.com>http://www.gizmoproject.com. Set aside 
>> the non-imaginative name we think this Mac/Win and soon Lin VOIP 
>> client is interesting. It does NAT/firewall traversal as well as 
>> Skype, but it's based on open standard SIP and we're trying to 
>> connect to every one with a commitment to an open directory. Of 
>> course this means DUNDI too!
>>
>> Gizmo is a snazzy VOIP client with nice features like voicemail, call 
>> record, etc. but more importantly for this list a Gizmo user can call 
>> DUNDI numbers with no additional configuration. We'd like to get some 
>> testers specifically of the DUNDI connection.
>>
>> We're looking for ways to make it work better with Astericks in 
>> general. Ideally, we'd like to make the client configurable to work 
>> with an Astericks setup, but still do the firewall/NAT traversal 
>> stuff so it could be used as a remote client from anywhere on the net.
>>
>> Please give it a try and let me know how it works for you and any 
>> suggestions you might have.
>>
>> Go astericks!
>>
>> -- MR
>>
>> Michael Robertson
>> <mailto:michael at linspire.com>michael at linspire.com  Read the latest 
>> Michael's Minute <http://www.lindows.com/mm>here
>
>
> Michael -
>   I actually downloaded Gizmo a few days ago on my Mac and got it 
> working - congrats on that, at least!  I am typically the worst 
> possible installation candidate, and the software did what it was 
> supposed to.
>
>   I do have a few issues with Gizmo, though.  It's not a software 
> client - it's a service.  You don't allow for alternate SIP servers to 
> be specified in the configuration, therefore this is not something 
> that is very useful to me.  I don't have any control over where my 
> calls go, or how they're handled.  I can't opt out of DUNDi, if you're 
> using it, or ENUM, or...?  I assume you're using ENUM lookups as 
> well?  What roots?  (Hint: the ENUM question may directly link into 
> your query about how to get DUNDi e164 calls to the advertising 
> destination, depending on your configuration.)
>
>  Looking for DUNDi integration into your service is perhaps getting 
> ahead of yourself with the wrong audience, though I do commend the 
> desire to deliver calls via IP for free.  However, you may wish to 
> review this policy if you have paying customers - there is always the 
> real possibility of number hijack if you are subscribing to a 
> directory service with weak authentication 
> (friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend...)  It's one thing when people using 
> the system know that the possibility exists, it's quite another when 
> you have otherwise-unaware people paying for the service.
>
>   I understand that you're not pitching this product (the client) to 
> the advanced user, so perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree when I say 
> I'm disappointed in the inextricable client/service linkage.  You 
> indicate that you're looking to do more Asterisk integration somehow, 
> so I'm anxious to see what results from that effort and if it's useful 
> to me.
>
>   Lastly, you're not using e164 numbers.  You're using an area code 
> that you've picked out of the air - we've had this discussion before. 
> I applaud your desire to be _similar_ to e164, but you're not.  A 
> better choice would be to go to NANP and apply for some non-geographic 
> number space, or to talk with the people using the +878 country code 
> (though you'll be talking to a very expensive and Bell-shaped brick 
> wall.)  If you want to be e164-compliant, you need to actually use 
> e164 numbers.  While I don't have time to read it at the moment, I 
> would hope that the DUNDi GPA does not allow for "spurious" number 
> ranges to be introduced (<cough>1700<cough>) since that sets a very 
> bad precedent and will lead to distrust of the number pool right out 
> of the starting blocks.  It's been a while since I read that doc; 
> maybe there's a provision for "private" numbers with a flag...
>
>
> PS: I get continual timeout errors when trying to send a SIP subscribe 
> to one or more of your services that your app "secretly" subscribes 
> to.  Here's a snipped of the fast-paced tethereal dump of 5060 
> information buzzing by (almost all of it errors or overly aggressive 
> re-SUBSCRIBE requests) on my laptop:
> 209.291017 202.1.16.19 -> 198.65.166.131 SIP Request: SUBSCRIBE 
> sip:17474746000 at proxy01.sipphone.com:5060
> 210.207193 198.65.166.131 -> 202.1.16.19 SIP Status: 408 Request Timeout
>
>
> PPS: The inability to specify a SIP URI address (despite the 
> nomenclature on the "Add User" interface that says "SIP number") as a 
> location indicator is especially frustrating, considering your 
> previous dedication to open standards.   When I try to put 
> "jtodd at loligo.com" in this field, I get an error of "Add contact 
> failed, error 1.  The name "jtoddloligocom" is not an existing 
> username. Check the name or leave that field blank."   This appears to 
> my untrained eye that the service format is moving BACKWARDS into the 
> anti-standards world of Skype, by disallowing connectivity to any 
> subscriber identifier that doesn't a member.  (Note: SIP URIs are 
> inherently different than e164 numbers as far as reliability goes, so 
> my comments above re: trustworthiness of endpoints are not 
> contradictory to the desire to have URI dialing capability.)
>
>
> JT

-- 

Michael Robertson
michael at linspire.com  Read the latest Michael's Minute here 
<http://www.lindows.com/mm>

Linspire <http://www.linspire.com> - World's Easiest Desktop Linux
SIPphone <http://www.sipphone.com> - Call worldwide for free
MP3tunes <http://www.mp3tunes.com/> - Own your music, don't rent it and 
listen anywhere with MP3beamer <http://www.mp3beamer.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/dundi/attachments/20050707/f95acc48/attachment.htm