Comments on: Newsflash: You Don’t Need an SBC for WebRTC

By: Tsahi Levent-Levi

Tsahi Levent-Levi — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 20:51:15 +0000

In reply to Ashish Jain. Ashish, I think the value of an SBC is overstated when it comes to WebRTC, but I am feeling that enterprises will buy in to this overstated value of it anyway.

By: Ashish Jain

Ashish Jain — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:10:10 +0000

I agree with the statement that pure webRTC application does not necessitate interfacing with telco networks and hence a limited need for a webRTC gateway or an SBC function (in the traditional way it is deployed today). It is use case driven. There will be whole slew of new applications and use cases that will not even touch traditional telecom networks; but at the same time we all should realize that telecom network is the biggest social network we have where anyone can reach anyone and can’t be ignored.

The telcom carriers and enterprise networks are still transitioning from PSTN to SIP based IP network…so SBCs are here to stay for a long time. WebRTC gateway will be key for telcos and enterprises to extend their IP based services to web and embed them in native or web based mobile applications.

In my view it’s not about Web vs Telco. It is the Web+Telco that creates the true value.

Check out my blog where I have put together some analysis on different webRTC implementation approaches and role of SBC in the WebRTC world.

Will the Alchemy Between WebRTC and SBC Create Solid Gold?
http://blog.realtimecommunicationsworld.com/will-the-alchemy-between-webrtc-and-sbc-create-solid-gold.html

By: Tsahi Levent-Levi

Tsahi Levent-Levi — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:32:00 +0000

In reply to Antonio de Sousa. +1

By: Tsahi Levent-Levi

Tsahi Levent-Levi — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:31:48 +0000

In reply to Arthur Rosenberg.

Arthur,

Not really. SBC is pure IP. What I am describing is the migration from “traditional” VoIP network architecture to a web one. And yes – it will take time.

By: Antonio de Sousa

Antonio de Sousa — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:26:36 +0000

I agree, the reason I first deployed an SBC in 2004 was specifically due to a carrier that had double NATing in their network. So really because one of the 3 big telcos forced us to with our ATA based residential VOIP service. With our free soft phone service we used our own STUN and TURN servers 10 years ago with pretty good success and no SBC.

The reason we use a SBC today is to provide 1 public interface into our cluster of backend media servers, to save on public IP addresses. Perhaps the combination of webRTC, IPv6, and ICE will kill the full featured SBC which is what there are no pure play SBC companies left.

By: Arthur Rosenberg

Arthur Rosenberg — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:59:18 +0000

What you are describing is the eventual replacement of the wired PSTN with the wireless IP network and “cloud” based applications and information storage. The migration will, however, take time.