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

[Zweig, Greg]

Agreed -- We also have to consider the capabilities at the customer
premise.  I wouldn't want to advocate a solution that drives end
customers into a position where their existing equipment is made
obsolete.  There are many products in-use that could be upgraded to
other facets of a SIPconnect 1.1 implementation but will never cost
effectively support TCP.  I want to embrace them, not disenfranchise
them.  

We need to accommodate the past while we drive the future.

Greg Zweig
Sonus Networks. Inc
(978) 614-8027
 

-----Original Message-----
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On Behalf Of Peter Dunkley
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:23 PM
To: techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

The danger with this approach is that you will may end up with a 
wonderful SIPconnect 1.1 recommendation that the writers/purists love 
but is unpalatable to the industry.

There needs to be a pragmatic approach taken that illustrates what SIP 
trunking should be, while still encouraging quick adoption.

Making SPs have to choose between changing their architecture or 
becomming compliant will not encourage them to adopt SIPconnect (quickly

or otherwise).

Russell Bennett wrote:
> All,
>
> I know from trying to work with the SPs on SIP Trunking that *some*
SPs are going to take a firm position on the support of UDP only.   The
question that Janne poses is:
>
>         1) Are we going to define SC1.1 to be what a SIP Trunk service
should be (e.g. UDP *and* TCP, among many other things)?
>         OR
>         2) Write SC1.1 to be what we think will enroll more SPs in the
SC compliance program?
>
> I argue strongly against 2 - this would not be a step forward on
SC1.0.  3261 is very clear on TCP support.  If SIP Forum was a
commercial entity, then we would go for 2 to maximize revenue.
>
> However, SF is a standards body and it is incumbent upon us to develop
SC1.1 as a *correct*, albeit pragmatic, document.  The key is the
balance between pragmatism and correctness and I, for one, think that
accommodating SPs that are mired in the 20th century is the wrong side
of that balance.
>
> Russell
>
>   

_______________________________________________
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg