Linked by David Adams on Mon 21st Mar 2011 20:14 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
GNU, GPL, Open Source The GNU Project has announced a new project called GNU Free Call, an open source Skype alternative that will offer anonymous VoIP and will use the GNU SIP Witch server as the back end. GNU SIP Witch requires a minimum of system resources so it can be used on cell phones too so it seems the goal is to provide a cross-platform application, the immediate target most probably being Android.
Permalink for comment 467512
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: 'Twas about time
by Alfman on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 'Twas about time"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

"I agree the SIP protocol could be better engineered but I don't get what is the need for a firewall when your voip application has its own IP address."

The need for firewalls is really a separate debate.

"NAT has no use for voip."

You could say "NAT has no use for HTTP" or "NAT has no use for SSH", since NAT has nothing to do with these protocols either. Somehow I allowed myself to veer off from talking about SIP to talking about NAT, but these are two separate topics. My original point was that protocols which use a single port are much more manageable.

"load distribution does not make sense for a voip application."

Why not? Shouldn't that decision be left to the sysadmins? Who are we to set policy?

"domain names don't apply to voip."

You've never used xlite or another voip/im client to dial "mydomain.com" or "###@mydomain.com"? Not only does this work, it's highly practical.

If ever it became popular, I'm sure most businesses would like to use their domain name for VOIP calls as well as web hosting. Why should we require that a domain name can only be used for services running on a single server? There is no reason to impose limits like this.


"That is why there are registrars. Just tell your registrar what is your new IP address and you are done."

Yes of course, but you could port forward the old IP to eliminate the DNS prorogation downtime. It's one solution we have today you think we shouldn't have, but why not?


I understand your agenda against IPv4, but your beef with port forwarding is exagerated. Regarding the load balancers mentioned above? Please explain why these shouldn't be permitted on IPv6?

I already know ipv4 is a nightmare, but port forwarding is useful even in corporate environments where IPv4 was never a limitation....you are simply overstating your case.

Reply Parent Score: 1