[SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
Joanne McMillen
joanne at avaya.com
Tue May 20 19:42:33 EDT 2008
Bingo... ;-)
Joanne
----- Original Message -----
From: Elwell, John
To: Hiers, David ; Russell Bennett ; Zweig, Greg ; techwg at sipforum.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
Yes, this has always been the thing that puzzled me. A lot of vendors
and service providers have tried to reproduce PSTN capabilities with
SIP. Yet PSTN signalling protocols always ran over a reliable transport,
so the obsession with UDP seems to be a contradiction.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Hiers, David
> Sent: 20 May 2008 18:28
> To: Russell Bennett; Zweig, Greg; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
>
> All,
> As a service provider using an expensive mix of best-of-breed SIP
> implementations that service a fair number of endpoints and minutes, I
> see the ability to use UDP as one of SIP's primary weaknesses.
>
> The attempt to supplant the TDM PSTN five-nines reliability is not
> particularly well facilitated by running the entire show over an
> unreliable transport protocol whose primary benefit is reduced HW
> resource requirements.
>
> When shopping for future peering partners, I would tend to prefer one
> who's engineering philosophy happily embraces the
> deterministic control
> of TCP rather than the fire-and-forget nature of UDP.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> David Hiers
>
> CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP
> ADP Dealer Services
> 2525 SW 1st Ave.
> Suite 300W
> Portland, OR 97201
> o: 503-205-4467
> f: 503-402-3277
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> On Behalf Of Russell Bennett
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:21 AM
> To: Zweig, Greg; techwg at sipforum.org
> 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
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the
> use of the addressee and may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is
> not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and
> any attachments from your system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080520/80ed4e7f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the techwg
mailing list