[SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

[Janne Magnusson]

All,

Do you expect the major SPs to implement full RFC 3261 support
(including TCP and UDP) any time soon?

I was under the impression that one of the major objectives with
SIPConnect 1.1 was to increase the adoption of SIPConnect among service
providers. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption.

I have no problem with having RFC 3261 as a MUST requirement, but there
is a reality out there and I'm convinced that a TCP requirement will
reduce or slow down the acceptance of SIPConnect 1.1 among major SPs.
Personally I would like to see the majority of all SIP Trunks delivered
a year from now to be SIPConnect 1.1 compliant, but that is only my
view.

/Janne

PS. It would be great if anyone can tell me I'm wrong and that AT&T,
Global Crossing, Level3 and others are about to support TCP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On
> Behalf Of Peter Dunkley
> Sent: den 18 maj 2008 21:08
> To: Eric Burger
> Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (actually, SIPconnect does
> *not* change SIP)
> 
> Would a solution be to explicitly state that a SIPconnect compliant
> device MUST adhere to RFC 3261 - which means that UDP and TCP MUST
both
> be supported.
> 
> However, a SIPconnect compliant device, when used within a SIPconnect
> compliant environment MUST NOT use UDP.
> 
> This means that backwards compatibility is ensured, and also makes it
> quite clear that there is no place for UDP going forward.  It also
means
> that SIPconnect compliant devices do not require specific tests for
UDP.
> 
> This would satisfy me because it leaves no scope for an engineer,
> beginning to work on a new implementation, starting from the
SIPconnect
> recommendation and assuming that means that he does not have to
support
> UDP.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> Eric Burger wrote:
> > (1) I think you mean TCP is the default.
> >
> > (2) What do we gain by mentioning UDP at all?  If there are 507 test
> > cases for SIPconnect stuff, mentioning UDP means there are now 1014
> > test cases (507 for SIPconnect with TCP, 507 for SIPconnect with
UDP).
> >
> > Yes, not mentioning UDP, but still supporting RFC 3261, means you
> > don't get to not do UDP.  However, it makes SIPconnect compliance
> > testing and verification much easier.
> >
> > [507 is just a random number; pick your guess as to what is the
right
> > number.  The factor of two does not go away.]
> >
> >
> > On May 18, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I agree.  This was my concern when I read MUST TCP, but only MAY
UDP
> >>> in
> >>> the document.
> >>>
> >>> I believe it is perfectly acceptable to say that SIPconnect
compliant
> >>> devices MUST support TCP, but there are a lot of UDP only devices
in
> >>> use
> >>> within networks right now.  These need to keep working when
connected
> >>> with SIPconnect 1.1 compliant devices or no enterprise or service
> >>> provider will have any interest in it.
> >>>
> >>> To my mind that means that both TCP and UDP are MUSTs.  But,
perhaps
> >>> TCP
> >>> should be RECOMMENDed as the default transport (with UDP as a
fall-
> >>> back)?
> >>>
> >> Chair hat off. Yes .. both are MUST but STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that
> >> UDP is the
> >> default.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> techwg mailing list
> >> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> >> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > techwg mailing list
> > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg