[nycbug-talk] Google and IPv6 Adoption

[Tim A.]

Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Tim A. wrote:
>
>   
>>> Reminds me of trying to get ip6 with asterisk, which is something I
>>> would love to see. Can be done, but it would need a proxy-less
>>> connection to get the desired effect. IPSEC + NAT + VoIP is
>>> sucksville.
>>>
>>> -jesse
>>>       
>> Definitely, SIP is one of the leading business arguments for IPv6, IMO.
>>     
> are you on crack? sip is far more broken for v6 than v4.
>   

I've not tried it. If it has problems I wouldn't know.
I'm saying, in terms of doing away with NAT and the need to proxy SIP, 
supposedly built in IPSEC? (gotta see how that's going to work), and the 
globally unique address per device... that all just seems like they 
ought to go together pretty well.

>   
>> That will no doubt be where I'll be doing my IPv6 crash course--in a
>> telcom test bed playing with SIP. But not till the end of the year.
>>     
> you like pain.
>   

I'm kind of looking at IPv6 as the "pain" part. I was hoping SIP would 
make a fun and exciting example of something obviously useful to be done 
with it.

Thanks for the heads up.

>   
>> One of the things I've always liked most about Asterisk is IAX.
>>     
> iax sucks and mustdie. amateurs.
>
> -alex
>   

I've heard that before, ha!

I've not done anything *big* with it. idk. Works fine at home!
IAX2 on the trunk side, SIP inside.
Amateurish, I suppose, but hey--it just works.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.nycbug.org:8443/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080421/de890ca2/attachment.htm>