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

Tue May 20 15:00:35 EDT 2008

Skipping the survey - in our "SIP Trunking" product-line we support TCP
today and would, therefore, be compliant with 1.1 day one. (assuming TCP
is a MUST)  It's in our production network today, though, in vast orders
of magnitude, there's more UDP than TCP .  For what it's worth.  

Adam Uzelac
Global Crossing
Director, Converged Network Architecture and Planning
585-563-4359

________________________________

	From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Dan York
	Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:17 PM
	To: Richard Shockey
	Cc: 'Russell Bennett'; techwg at sipforum.org
	Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

	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
<mailto:Russell.Bennett at microsoft.com> 
			To: Zweig, Greg <mailto:gzweig at sonusnet.com>  ;
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/20080520/4fd4ac8a/attachment-0001.html 