Project

General

Profile

DesignXMPP arch » History » Version 6

Anonymous, 02/29/2012 12:27 PM

1 1
= XMPP gateway architecture =
2
3 4
The architecture of the SIP-XMPP gateway can be modeled in two different ways:
4 1
5 4
 * Based on an XMPP component
6
 * Based on an XMPP server (using server-to-server communication)
7 1
8 4
Both approaches are not mutually exclusive, they can both be implemented at the same time and decide which one to use with a configuration option to allow different deployment scenarios.
9
10
== XMPP component based architecture ==
11
12 5
[[Image(xmppgw-arch-component.png)]]
13 2
14 5
=== Elements required ===
15 3
16 5
 * XMPP server (ejabberd for example)
17 1
 * XMPP server plugin (divert stanzas to offline users to a given component)
18
 * SIP Application server which is also a XMPP component
19
 * SIP proxy (registration, AAA and routing)
20 4
21
== XMPP server based architecture ==
22 1
23 5
[[Image(xmppgw-arch-server.png)]]
24 4
25 5
=== Elements required ===
26 4
27 5
 * SIP Application server which is also a XMPP server
28
 * SIP proxy (registration, AAA and routing)
29 6
30
== Chosen architecture ==
31
32
After experimenting with both models the chosen model to be implemented first is the '''XMPP server based architecture'''. The component based approach shall be added at a later time.
33
34
The chosen model has a number of advantages / disadvantages:
35
36
 * Advantages
37
  * Less network elements involved
38
  * Full control over XMPP routing since the server is customized
39
  * No need for developing plugins for any XMPP server
40
 * Disadvantages:
41
  * Inability to use an XMPP client in the local domain
42
43
The critical factor when making this choice is the fact that if a custom XMPP server is built all the routing logic can be customized without the need of running an extra XMPP server and writing a plugin for it. Thus, this approach is more sustainable over time.