[9fans] SIP

[9fans] SIP

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

Anyone working on or have a simple SIP router/proxy for Plan9?  As of
today I will no longer waste days of my life dealing with the abomination
that is Asterisk.

--lyndon

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Lucio De Re]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 02:10:23PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> Anyone working on or have a simple SIP router/proxy for Plan9?  As
> of today I will no longer waste days of my life dealing with the
> abomination that is Asterisk.
>
I'd love to hear of such a success story.

Me, I'd have used Tcl/Tk to develop Asterisk, but I guess PABX/telephony
engineers are a breed apart, whether subhuman or superhuman remains to
be decided.

Lucio.

PS: If you want to start something as useful as a Plan 9-based PABX,
I have done a little development in Inferno long ago that I have been
loath to discard, I'll be happy to donate it and as much of my time as I
can spare (plenty, but not very productive) to such an endeavour.  But I'm
very much a team (sheep?) developer, I hate doing things on my own.

I also have an ISDN adapter that is screaming to have a Plan 9 device
driver developed for it, but, again, it's been impossible for me to go
that route without being able to compare notes with anyone.

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> PS: If you want to start something as useful as a Plan 9-based PABX,
> I have done a little development in Inferno long ago that I have been
> loath to discard, I'll be happy to donate it and as much of my time as I
> can spare (plenty, but not very productive) to such an endeavour.  But I'm
> very much a team (sheep?) developer, I hate doing things on my own.

I'd be curious to see what you came up with.

My thoughts we around using a modified version of the plumber to drive the
routing logic, but it's all very hypothetical right now.  I had no
intention of doing media conversion or any of that sort of thing.

As to the volume of SIP RFCs, the only way to make this work is to
implement just the bare minimum of SIP required to do the job. A friend of
mine has done a couple of from-scratch SIP proxies and has been a wealth
of information about how not to do this ;-)

But it's all moot right now as I have much else to do first.

--lyndon

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Lucio De Re]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:34:32PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> I'd be curious to see what you came up with.
>
It was the emulation of a handset, on screen, driving an interface
adapter that communicated digitally with a small PABX.  I can post the
ancient Inferno code as is on my web site, but to update the code will
take a while, which seems to dovetail with your own requirements.

> My thoughts we around using a modified version of the plumber to
> drive the routing logic, but it's all very hypothetical right now.
> I had no intention of doing media conversion or any of that sort of
> thing.
>
I hadn't thought of that, it does sound useful as a general solution.

> As to the volume of SIP RFCs, the only way to make this work is to
> implement just the bare minimum of SIP required to do the job. A
> friend of mine has done a couple of from-scratch SIP proxies and has
> been a wealth of information about how not to do this ;-)
>
I do wish programmers were more keen to document exactly this type of
understanding and save others repeating their mistakes.  But it's good
to know where to look.

++L

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Bruce Ellis]

I wrote a SIP proxy in Limbo, a decade and a bit apast. Can't find it
off-hand. Maybe it's in VNI or discarded by the the IBU mafia.

brucee

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:34:32PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>>
>> I'd be curious to see what you came up with.
>>
> It was the emulation of a handset, on screen, driving an interface
> adapter that communicated digitally with a small PABX.  I can post the
> ancient Inferno code as is on my web site, but to update the code will
> take a while, which seems to dovetail with your own requirements.
>
>> My thoughts we around using a modified version of the plumber to
>> drive the routing logic, but it's all very hypothetical right now.
>> I had no intention of doing media conversion or any of that sort of
>> thing.
>>
> I hadn't thought of that, it does sound useful as a general solution.
>
>> As to the volume of SIP RFCs, the only way to make this work is to
>> implement just the bare minimum of SIP required to do the job. A
>> friend of mine has done a couple of from-scratch SIP proxies and has
>> been a wealth of information about how not to do this ;-)
>>
> I do wish programmers were more keen to document exactly this type of
> understanding and save others repeating their mistakes.  But it's good
> to know where to look.
>
> ++L
>
>

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Charles Forsyth]

>Maybe it's in VNI or discarded by the the IBU mafia.

the latter, i'm afraid. i never saw it.

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Bruce Ellis]

i may have a copy on an ancient laptop. it's worth it, it was icky.

brucee

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>>Maybe it's in VNI or discarded by the the IBU mafia.
>
> the latter, i'm afraid. i never saw it.
>
>

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Tristan Plumb]

> Anyone working on or have a simple SIP router/proxy for Plan9?  As of
> today I will no longer waste days of my life dealing with the
> abomination that is Asterisk.
I would also love to see a SIP implementation for Plan 9, I've
contemplated it a number of times, but the sheer volume of SIP RFCs is
not encouraging! And porting something like SER (never Asterisk) appears
even harder.

That said, I've thought a good bit about a sensible way to implement a
SIP proxy, and I'll be thinking about it a good bit more now...

--
All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Robert Raschke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Tristan Plumb <9p-st@imu.li> wrote:

> > Anyone working on or have a simple SIP router/proxy for Plan9?  As of
> > today I will no longer waste days of my life dealing with the
> > abomination that is Asterisk.
> I would also love to see a SIP implementation for Plan 9, I've
> contemplated it a number of times, but the sheer volume of SIP RFCs is
> not encouraging! And porting something like SER (never Asterisk) appears
> even harder.
>
> That said, I've thought a good bit about a sensible way to implement a
> SIP proxy, and I'll be thinking about it a good bit more now...
>
>
I guess you could port Erlang and then run Yxa (
http://www.stacken.kth.se/project/yxa/).

Robby

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1146 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] SIP

[smiley]

Tristan Plumb <9p-st@imu.li> writes:

>> Anyone working on or have a simple SIP router/proxy for Plan9?  As of
>> today I will no longer waste days of my life dealing with the
>> abomination that is Asterisk.
> I would also love to see a SIP implementation for Plan 9, I've

Here here!  I'd also love to see SIP on Plan 9.  I've been considering
trying to run Asterisk under linuxemu.  However a more elegant solution
(i.e., just about anything) would be much preferable!

> That said, I've thought a good bit about a sensible way to implement a
> SIP proxy, and I'll be thinking about it a good bit more now...

Would it make sense, perhaps, to start with an IAX2 proxy?  There is
only one (maybe two?) RFCs for IAX2, and it's much more NAT-friendly
than SIP.  AFAIK, P9 doesn't have a VoIP infrastructure, yet.  It might
be easier to prototype a VoIPfs (or whatnot) around IAX2 than SIP.
Then, with the basic VoIP scaffolding already in place, maybe the
mountain of SIP RFCs could be tackled a bit more easily.

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Charles Forsyth]

i couldn't work out which hardware, usable by Asterix, could be
driven by another system instead.

Re: [9fans] SIP

[Josh Marshall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 265 bytes --]

I'm familiar with MS's definition of SIP, but what's this definition?

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>wrote:

> i couldn't work out which hardware, usable by Asterix, could be
> driven by another system instead.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 517 bytes --]