What's Special/Exclusive About GV's SIP Configuration?
Taoman:
Quote from: billsimon on August 13, 2018, 05:57:53 pm
No devices other than Obi support the third-party auth mechanism. It's not just as simple as changing out SIP username/password for oauth2 tokens. It's actually a different SIP registration sequence.
The other "biggie" is RFC 5626, called SIP Outbound, which is largely unsupported. I don't know whether any other SIP devices support it right now.
rtcp-mux may not be very well supported, but is out there; ICE is implemented in a lot of devices and softphones.
Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I was curious (along with others) about this issue.
I'm going to bookmark your post for future reference.
Wish I knew some details of the arrangement between Polycom/Obihai and Google vis-à-vis Google Voice and any possible "exclusivity" involved.
I also question, as you do, whether Google/Obihai will continue to allow 3rd party access to obihai.sip.google.com.
A_Friend:
Quote from: Taoman on August 13, 2018, 06:51:11 pm
I also question, as you do, whether Google/Obihai will continue to allow 3rd party access to obihai.sip.google.com.
Well, that's in Google's domain, so I guess it's them accommodating Obihai, rather than anything Obihai "owns." So, that will probably continue to be available to anyone using Google Voice who wants to use that protocol. At least, logically that's the way it seems to me.
Besides Obihai devices, I'm also a fan of Raspberry Pi. Right now, all I use mine for is entertainment, but I'm tickled by the idea that you could run a PBX on a $10 Pi Zero W, now with GV trunks! http://nerdvittles.com/?p=26267
There's actually nothing telephonic I need right now that my Obi 202 and 200 and the four carriers I use (and their cloud/backend platforms) isn't providing, so I'm not highly motivated to dig into it, but I'm definitely tickled by the idea.
RFC3261:
Quote from: Taoman on August 13, 2018, 06:51:11 pm
Wish I knew some details of the arrangement between Polycom/Obihai and Google vis-à-vis Google Voice and any possible "exclusivity" involved.
The only parties that actually know are not going to be talking. I suspect (but do not know) that Google would be open to consider negotiating with other parties than Plantronic/Polycom/Obihai, but I'll bet you are going to have to be a bigger player to get into the game (and possibly throw some resources into the pot). AFAIK there is no one outside of Obi who have managed to successfully get into contact with the right people at Google to take any next steps (even though I am pretty sure at least one person did try when the dung hit the fan).
Quote
I also question, as you do, whether Google/Obihai will continue to allow 3rd party access to obihai.sip.google.com.
I can easily see that others should be requesting their own endpoint as part of the negotiation with Google. As Bill documented, there are clearly endpoints for multiple entities in addition to obihai (although many look to currently be under the other bets, such as fi.telephony.goog, and waymo.telephony.goog, although we do not know how many others may exist out there (well, I should say *I* do not know how many others are out there, since I have not performed the research experiment beyond the fi and waymo)). Those may be related to potential future load balancing, but they may also be related to potential licensing or access arrangements. We just don't know. I would be slightly more concerned about the registration name, which (for true obihai devices) reflects the obi device number, and it is clearly possible that devices which are not true obi devices will get purged at some point as not legitimate. But again, we just don't know. I would not worry about any of those things very much as long as you do not end up building solutions that have extremely high expectations of reliability and availability (and if you are I would certainly recommend getting in touch with Google first to avoid problems).
Taoman:
Quote from: RFC3261 on August 13, 2018, 08:42:28 pm
I would be slightly more concerned about the registration name, which (for true obihai devices) reflects the obi device number, and it is clearly possible that devices which are not true obi devices will get purged at some point as not legitimate. But again, we just don't know.
Good point.
My point is if there is a formal agreement/contract between Polyhai and Google (with resources thrown in the pot) then if I was Polyhai I wouldn't be thrilled with 3rd parties utilizing a proxy server ostensibly (exclusively?) dedicated for Obihai devices.
And if the plan was for anyone and everyone to have access then I'd think a more generic hostname than obihai.sip.google.com would have been used. But I could easily be overthinking this. ;)
SteveInWA:
Quote from: RFC3261 on August 13, 2018, 08:42:28 pm
Quote from: Taoman on August 13, 2018, 06:51:11 pm
Wish I knew some details of the arrangement between Polycom/Obihai and Google vis-à-vis Google Voice and any possible "exclusivity" involved.
The only parties that actually know are not going to be talking. I suspect (but do not know) that Google would be open to consider negotiating with other parties than Plantronic/Polycom/Obihai, but I'll bet you are going to have to be a bigger player to get into the game (and possibly throw some resources into the pot). AFAIK there is no one outside of Obi who have managed to successfully get into contact with the right people at Google to take any next steps (even though I am pretty sure at least one person did try when the dung hit the fan).
Quote
I also question, as you do, whether Google/Obihai will continue to allow 3rd party access to obihai.sip.google.com.
I can easily see that others should be requesting their own endpoint as part of the negotiation with Google. As Bill documented, there are clearly endpoints for multiple entities in addition to obihai (although many look to currently be under the other bets, such as fi.telephony.goog, and waymo.telephony.goog, although we do not know how many others may exist out there (well, I should say *I* do not know how many others are out there, since I have not performed the research experiment beyond the fi and waymo)). Those may be related to potential future load balancing, but they may also be related to potential licensing or access arrangements. We just don't know. I would be slightly more concerned about the registration name, which (for true obihai devices) reflects the obi device number, and it is clearly possible that devices which are not true obi devices will get purged at some point as not legitimate. But again, we just don't know. I would not worry about any of those things very much as long as you do not end up building solutions that have extremely high expectations of reliability and availability (and if you are I would certainly recommend getting in touch with Google first to avoid problems).
The other domains you see are other Google services (Project Fi, the hybrid VoIP/LTE mobile phone service) and Waymo, the self-driving car subsidiary (don't ask me why they'd need that!). Google is not doing any work with any other third parties as of now.
It's conceivable that, in the somewhat distant future, other VoIP hardware OEMs might participate, but that participation would be under the upcoming Google Voice service for G Suite (paying) customers. Google is not interested in giving away free SIP trunks; they are interested in providing a fully-supported business-class, paid service. And, no, this will have no impact on the continuing availability of the free consumer-targeted service.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page