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

Tue May 20 16:40:47 EDT 2008

This is interesting - hadn't heard it was "most PBXs" - thought it was more an
issue with SPs...

That's been my limited observation anyway - SP adoption of TCP, not PBX...

Joanne
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Janne Magnusson 
  To: Uzelac, Adam ; techwg at sipforum.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

  Adam,

  Good to hear that you support TCP. But why do you think UDP is the dominating protocol today? Is there any rational reason to why most SIP Trunks are delivered over UDP (besides the obvious fact that most PBXes only support UDP today)?

  /Janne

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Uzelac, Adam
  Sent: den 20 maj 2008 21:01
  To: Dan York; Richard Shockey
  Cc: techwg at sipforum.org; Russell Bennett
  Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

  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

      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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20080520/054a6895/attachment-0001.html 