IM gateways?

[Ed]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Joseph Sinclair
<plug-discussion at stcaz.net> wrote:
> The main advantages of gateways, from my perspective, are twofold:
> 1) Your multiple IM personas are managed server-side, so you connect once from any given location and don't have to re-enter all your accounts everywhere.
> 2) Gateways can connect to additional services that most clients cannot connect to, such as SMS service or SIP voice/TDD services.
>
> There are additional benefits in the form of reduced spim and more flexibility in what type of interface you have available, but the above are the biggest advantages.
>
> For corporate users, the big advantages are that all IM can be restricted to the corporate server for audit, electronic records, and policy enforcement, but that's not a big deal for individual use.
>
> Kurt Granroth wrote:
>> Sure, I have multiple IM accounts for exactly that reason.  But pretty
>> much every IM client out there can support multiple accounts.  Why
>> wouldn't you just manage your multiple accounts in the IM app instead of
>> routing it through some other service?
>>
>> I have to be missing something pretty fundamental, here.
>>

Gateways enable non-Internet networks to access Internet services -
keep the house in RFC 1918 non-routable space? Work running a firewall
that blocks IM ports? you need a gateway to stay connected.
OpenFire is targeted at the SMB market - good Asterisk integration if
memory serves - so consolidating the chaos that is everyone's personal
IM choice into one corporate login solves lots of probable problems.
You can also lock down the client if you control the gateway, so less
support headaches.

You still need the creds to use the other services, a Gateway just
consolidates the various IM traffic - like a proxy - to your internal
network. There is always a service gap when AIM or somebody else makes
changes to their "proprietary" protocol - just FYI.
^Ed