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

Tue May 20 14:16:34 EDT 2008

I agree as well... but would ask the question that I did in a response  
to Greg earlier.  Do we know how many likely candidates for the  
SIPconnect 1.1 certification would support TCP & UDP versus UDP-only?

If the overwhelming majority of products that would likely go after  
the SIPconnect 1.1 certification either already support TCP or have it  
on their near-term roadmap to do so (and would provide upgrades to  
existing products), then this discussion is really moot.  If on the  
other hand the vast majority would only support SIP over UDP in the  
next 12 months (which I personally don't think is the case), then that  
is a good data point to know relative to the potential uptake of the  
SIPconnect 1.1 cert.

Anyone want to run an anonymous surveymonkey.com survey or something  
like that?

Dan

P.S. Of the products/services currently certified for SIPconnect 1.0,  
how many of them support SIP over TCP? (Or will in the next 12 months?)

On May 20, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> Agree 200%  J
>
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg- 
> bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Joanne McMillen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:05 PM
> To: Russell Bennett; Zweig, Greg; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     dyork at voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20080520/e287ae7f/attachment-0001.html 