IAX2 Support

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Feature request:
Please add IAX2 support. IAX2 is much easier to configure on server side.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tihm...@gmail.com on 30 May 2010 at 10:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi,

That's not planned. IAX2 is really different from SIP. I'll try first to make
something suitable in SIP :).

As far as I know, pjsip, the native sip stack on which csipsimple is based, 
doesn't
support IAX2. 
If the pjsip team decide to add something for IAX2, csipsimple will have this
improvement too.
Another solution would be to integrate another native opensource and portable 
stack,
but that's really far to be a priority.

I don't reject this request, but unless somebody else wants to contribute for 
that,
it is postponed for a long time.

Original comment by r3gis...@gmail.com on 31 May 2010 at 8:02

• Added labels: Priority-Low, Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium, Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I vote for this because of its smaller bandwidth requirements and better 
reliability 
through firewalls.   (Stun not required.)  Huge advantage for android users on 
limited 
data plans.

Original comment by kro...@gmail.com on 1 Jun 2010 at 10:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There is a library.  Info provided by sipdroid user.  Could win some market 
share.  http://code.google.com/p/sipdroid/issues/detail?id=244

Original comment by kro...@gmail.com on 8 Jun 2010 at 12:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

voting for that.
IAX has great potential at mobiles, since it have some improvements in network 
part (better NAT handling, among others)

Original comment by zdevel on 20 Jun 2010 at 4:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

vote for iax2 in android pls

as soon as I opened port 5060 to the world I got several dict attacks on sip 
login which basically DOS'ed my asterisk server, I had to firewall 5060 to just 
a few known IP's that will use my 'roid phone over wifi (will trial fail2ban to 
see if that alleviates the attacks)

I use an IAX client on my MacBook (Loudhush or JackenIAX) and have never seen 
an attack on 4569 on my asterisk server

also as mentioned IAX2 uses less b/w and avoids NAT issues 

apart from this THANKS FOR CSipSimple  

WORKS LOVEY ON ZTE BLADE (orange san francisco) under Gingerbread 2.3.3 
Cyanogenmod7 (both RC1 and nightlies 1-15 so far)

audio routed correctly to earpiece and then loudspeaker when loudspeaking is 
chosen
sometimes audio quality lacks despite using codec 722 - trying KEEP AWAKE 
DURING CALL to see if that makes a difference

keep up the great work

Original comment by jpalka...@googlemail.com on 10 Mar 2011 at 8:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

try IaxAgent by Johan Cloetens?

http://www.belgianwaves.com/
http://twitter.com/belgianwaves  [I am not a twit]
http://www.appbrain.com/app/iaxagent-beta/com.bw.iax.ui
http://pbxinaflash.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7100

IAX handles NAT traversal orders of magnitude better than SIP

Original comment by bacon.li...@live.com on 23 Jun 2011 at 11:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

IAX is a hack, a toy, a pseudo-protocol (instead of separating signalling and 
media as *any* modern VoIP protocol it forces both streams to go together).

IAX does not allow IM neither presence. IAX has several design issues and 
critical vulnerabilities and bugs in its main implementation (Asterisk).

IAX was created by Mark Spencer because he does not properly understand SIP 
protocol (given the old-fashion-PBX implemented in Asterisk that is not a 
surprise for me).

There is enough mechanisms in SIP for handling NAT, in client and server side. 
In the other side IAX requires that the media goes always to the central server 
which could be so far from both callers. This is a pain and un feasible in many 
environments, generating latency and so.

IAX is just supported by a few (very few) phones and just some PBX's (the 
anti-cool-DTMF-based Asterisk and FreeSwitch). Must we asume that CSipSimple is 
designed to "work with Asterisk"? Please not.

Please forget IAX. Just people with no knowledge of SIP is in favour of IAX 
(just because "it seems easier").

Original comment by i...@aliax.net on 27 Jul 2011 at 1:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Whether you're for or against IAX2, matters not. The fact that SIP and IAX 
exsist, is sufficient enough to make them accessable to any user, anywhere.
CSipSimple is a great, stable program and if IAX can be added to it, then I say 
go for it.

Will save me running 2 apps and if it can all function in CSipSimple, that 
would only be a good thing..

Original comment by hbrau...@gmail.com on 5 Dec 2011 at 5:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yep, actually I did a big effort on separating the SIP stack from the rest of 
the program. One of the next step will be to allow other sip stacks than pjsip 
(for example the stock gingerbread one or doubango, which is another great sip 
stack).
If this can be accomplished, I guess that it could be a good starting point to 
add other VoIP protocols support. The idea is to allow this kind of third party 
voip backend to be loaded as plugins apps, so would be a good compromise. 
Android os is very well designed to allow to extends apps features with other 
plugins apps. 
Well, as for this point, still open, still not in my higher priorities but 
contributions are welcome ;).

Original comment by r3gis...@gmail.com on 5 Dec 2011 at 5:42

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@Comment 7:
IAX2 does support messaging and IIRC also presence. Combining the signaling and 
the audiostream into one connection has advantages in regards to protocol 
overhead. Additionally, an encrypted IAX2 stream is significantly harder to 
dissect than SIP because of the combination of signaling and audio.

One of the biggest disadvantages of SIP is that it's very hard to operate a 
nat'ed PBX and it's impossible to run SIPS/SIPTLS through a nat'ed PBX.
Also, the combination of nat'ed client AND nat'ed PBXs is next to impossible to 
realize without dirty hacks which no firewall-admin will go along with.

SIP is fine for LAN or VPN applications. For the open internet and especially 
for mobile devices, IAX2 is the better choice.

Only people which need cleartext protocols because they don't understand binary 
protocols are against IAX2 ;).

Original comment by stefan.g...@gmail.com on 4 Dec 2012 at 4:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

>IAX is a hack, a toy, a pseudo-protocol (instead of separating signalling and 
media as *any* modern VoIP protocol it forces both streams to go together).

LoL. First of all IAX2 was designed because of problems with SIP, especially in 
NAT environment. For an average user multiplexing works much better then 
separate RTP and signalling streams, and BTW, multiplexing is VERY common in 
telephony. Also IAX adds some features, including trunking support, dialplan 
exchange, etc, but it is  a very different story. For me main benefits are:
1) It works via any NAT without ugly hacks like STUN.
2) In case of mulch-channel connection (> 1 stream) it saves bandwidth. 
3) Better interoperability - too many ways in SIP to do encryption, pass DTMF, 
specification is not clear in many aspects, etc.

IAX2 is supported not only by Asterisk, but also by number of hardware and 
software products, including FreeSwitch. Some carriers providing IAX2 
connection as well. So, from my point of view it would be great to see IAX2 
support in CSIPSIMPLE. And for religious fanatics i would recommend just not to 
use it but not start this stupid flame.

Original comment by sammnet...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2013 at 7:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes , We need IAX2 Support.

SIP is pain for nat and firewalls 

When do you think IAX2 version release ?

Thanks
Mohamed

Original comment by marad...@gmail.com on 16 Dec 2013 at 7:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

IAX is only producing less overhead on several calls .. unusual on cellphones.
calls on hold are not using a RTP channel as they are on hold on the Server.
a big disadvantage of IAX2 for mobile .. it doesnt work via TCP, UDP is a 
battery killer as allready known due the max refresh time of 60sec on some 
cellnetworks even down to 30sec.
In Comparation with TCP  15min ore more, typical is 60 min
i think to implement IAX2 for a Cellphone is not worth.
(as much i like IAX2)
IAX2 does include even the RTP stream, thats maybe one reason why there is 
never TCP forseen. 
RTP via TCP will be a bandwith killer and using much more Batterie power while 
in Call. beside of the usual larger audiobuffer to overcome delay in the stream 
caused due retry on IP-Stack level, out of control of IAX2

on the end IAX2 was developed to multiplex streams into one, and share the 
channel TDMA like based .. which will never be realiable via TCP

Original comment by hb9...@gmail.com on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Guys,

Did you create Iax2 for Android ?

Thanks

Original comment by marad...@gmail.com on 30 Apr 2014 at 8:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Presence could be provided via STOX or CUSAX, the two perspectives on Xmpp and 
SIP intersections. Jingle (xmpp) might well accomplish the NAT bliss claimed by 
IAX proponents who cannot also provide themselves entriprise configurations.

Original comment by joshuacr...@gmail.com on 22 Mar 2015 at 12:44

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by r3gis...@gmail.com on 22 Jun 2015 at 11:30

• Changed state: Obsolete