From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: smiley@icebubble.org To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> References: <2578bb.7fb1997c.C3Uw.mx@tumtum.plumbweb.net> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:41:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: <2578bb.7fb1997c.C3Uw.mx@tumtum.plumbweb.net> (Tristan Plumb's message of "Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:08:33 -0400") Message-ID: <864o36yv6q.fsf@cmarib.ramside> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [9fans] SIP Topicbox-Message-UUID: f8d3c318-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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.