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

[Joanne McMillen]

Agree 100%

Joanne
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Russell Bennett 
  To: Zweig, Greg ; techwg at sipforum.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)


  Greg et al.

  I have already agreed that we have to accommodate the past, but we also have to drive the future.  If we "make it OK to just offer UDP" then that is what people will think that it is acceptable to do.

  I have been actively engaged with a number of service providers for quite some time now and, without naming names or providing timelines, I can assure you that TCP is being deployed by service providers.

  As for encouraging quick adoption - the issue is not one of which SIP Transport is best/cheapest/already there; the issue is one of simple economics: SIP Trunks cannibalize Service Provider revenues under existing pricing models.  The SPs who offer "UDP only" are seeing little demand for SIP Trunking - what they don't realize is that it is a "chicken and egg" problem.

  We must move SP SIP connectivity capability forward such that SPs can start to deploy revenue generating services and applications to replace revenue lost by decrementing PRI trunks.  We can only get to a service federation model by moving rapidly beyond SIP Voice.  If we can't *even* get to more broadly deployed SIP Voice, then (some) SPs will remain where they are - stuck in the 20th century.

  Forward looking SPs that I work with have heard this loud and clear.

  UDP should be a 'MUST' to support older architectures.  TCP MUST be a 'MUST' to support newer architectures.  I don't see how we accommodate the past and drive the future any other way.


  Russell

  -----Original Message-----
  From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Zweig, Greg
  Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:39 AM
  To: Peter Dunkley; techwg at sipforum.org
  Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

  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

  _______________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20080520/9251f5a8/attachment-0001.html