On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 06:43:53AM -0500, Rich Adamson wrote: > >What I'm worried about is trying to fix it in the current code, since it > >will change quite a few things that are needed today, > >and break backwards compatibility. I've tried, but failed, in chan_sip2 > >:-) and that was when I was beginning to start thinking > >of chan_sip3, that will break backwards compatibility :-) > > But, didn't we run across that same compatibiliity issue with iax and > iax2, letting both peacefully exist until some predetermined date when > iax was remove? > > Wouldn't the same approach work with sip3?
IAX2 was technically a different protocol. That is: it used a different port number. However "chan_sip1" and chan_sip3 are both implementations of the same protocol, and expected to listen on the same port 5060. So you could run both on the same system, if one is bound to a different port. But if a remote system calls in and asks to connect through SIP, you have to choose, as it will typically just expect it on the well known SIP port. I also find hardwiring "IAX2" as part of the technology name in Asterisk less than elegant (though not a real issue). I started using Asterisk sometime after 0.99 rcs were released, and never got to use IAX1. -- Tzafrir Cohen sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] icq#16849755 iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
