[Asterisk-Dev] Channel registry question

[Derek Bruce]

Yes, you are correct... I am looking at the issue primarily from a telco
POV.

Our original thoughts on how to use Asterisk was as a PBX. Calls were passed
from our PSTN gateway to the Asterisk server. The Asterisk server replaced
our PBX. Then our office personel wanted to access the system from  outside
the office... hence office network PBX becomes WAN PBX. Having a PBX blocked
off from the outside world is fast becoming a thing of the past. With the
move away from the legacy PBX where each office location is an island unto
itself, the issue of multiple UA's configured with the same credentials is
going to become more of an issue.

Personally, I think the PBX moniker for Asterisk diminishes it's
capabilities.


Derek Bruce
Calgary Telecom
dbruce at calgarytelecom.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Critchfield" <critch at basesys.com>
To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Channel registry question


> On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 15:14, Derek Bruce wrote:
> > Stephen: I understand your point, and agree with it.
> >
> > The problem I see however, it that some people will install a client on
a
> > desktop computer and a laptop computer... They leave the desktop on all
the
> > time, and the client is registered to Asterisk... then they run the
client
> > on the laptop and it registers and works... then the desktop client
> > reregisters and the client on the laptop is orphaned...
>
> > Derek Bruce
> > Calgary Telecom
> > dbruce at calgarytelecom.com
>
> >From looking at your sig, I see where we would view the problem
> differently. I see the problem as each client needing it's own
> credentials and from a PBX point of view, it isn't a big deal to
> configure that. Taking a wild guess from your sig, you are looking at
> the problem from a telco point of view that would be interested in
> handing out a credentials to a user that is good for whatever the user
> puts it on. From there, you may have a user installing those credentials
> in multiple places and needing them to behave in a predictable manner.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven Critchfield" <critch at basesys.com>
> > To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Channel registry question
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 10:41, Steven Sokol wrote:
> > > > I have noticed that, given two IAX2 devices registering to my
asterisk
> > box
> > > > with the same credentials, the most recently registered device
becomes
> > the
> > > > endpoint for calls directed to that IAX2 channel.
> > >
> > > > Could we, without breaking anything, alter the registry process to
1)
> > allow
> > > > for multiple registered devices for a given channel, or 2) by
rejecting
> > > > registrations from a device while another device is registered with
the
> > same
> > > > credentials or 3) by de-registering the "older" of the two
> > registrations,
> > > > and sending the device being de-registered a "you just got logged
out
> > > > because you logged in elsewhere" response that will cause it to stop
> > trying
> > > > to register.
> > >
> > > Rejecting new registrations in my opinion is bad. Take the case of a
> > > machine being moved around on a DHCP lease, you would want it to come
> > > back up as quickly as possible. Take the case of a hot spare
configured
> > > to take over if it notices the primary goes offline. We want these to
> > > take over quickly and not wait for some timeout function to say the
old
> > > registration is no longer active.
> > >
> > > The best bet would be some form of deregister with ack, but what if it
> > > is used as an attack. You could forge a dereg packet and send it down
to
> > > a machine in an effort to make them no longer get calls. When would
the
> > > dereg'ed machine know to reconnect and try again.
> > >
> > > This all basically points out that you should be a decent admin when
> > > working on configs.
> > >
> > > > Should this be written up as a bug, or a request for a feature?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure it is either.
> > > --
> > > Steven Critchfield  <critch at basesys.com>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> > > Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > >    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> > Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> --
> Steven Critchfield  <critch at basesys.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev