[SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
Francois Audet
audet at nortel.com
Fri May 23 16:18:29 EDT 2008
Again, me too.
If somebody insist on UDP, then they would be SIPConnect 1.0-compliant instead of 1.1.
________________________________
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Joanne McMillen
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:55
To: Eric Burger; Russell Bennett
Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
agree...
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Burger <mailto:eburger at sipforum.org>
To: Russell Bennett <mailto:Russell.Bennett at microsoft.com>
Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
So if all of the major vendors support TCP, and
SIPconnect 1.1 is not just recording BCP, which means
Vendors are likely to have to do *something* to be SIPconnect 1.1
compliant, which means
Users are likely to have to upgrade, anyway,
I would offer:
There is no harm in NOT including UDP.
On May 23, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Russell Bennett wrote:
> This has been a pretty long thread. I think that almost everyone is
> in agreement that both UDP and TCP are both required in SC1.1, with
> a bias towards TCP as a REALLY MUST (or whatever language we choose)
> and UDP for backwards compatibility.
>
> I just wanted to respond to one issue that has been raised several
> times: that only UDP is supported by the majority of SIP deployments.
>
> I did some research on this and, while it is impossible to get data
> on current installed base, I have been able to determine what would
> be deployed today with existing product from the overwhelming
> majority market share vendors. Therefore, even if a customer had
> older equipment from a given vendor that only supported UDP, they
> have the option to upgrade to newer equipment that supports TCP or
> TLS.
>
> So, the notion that anyone is somehow constrained from supporting
> TCP (and even TLS) is invalid.
>
> Russell
>
> Vendor
> UDP
> TCP
> TLS
> Reference
> Microsoft
> N
> Y
> Y
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/b/6/db641148-427b-41d3-9f20-7ffbddaf65b8/OCS_VoIP_Guide.doc
> Cisco
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4t/12_4t11/FeatTLS.html#wp1092137
> IBM
> N
> Y
> Y
> http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/dw/lotus/sametime-sip.pdf
> Nortel
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www142.nortelnetworks.com/techdocs/CS1K_5_0/pdf/NN43001-564_01.05_NRS.pdf
> Avaya
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.avaya.com/gcm/master-usa/en-us/products/offers/sip_enablement_services.htm&View=ProdTechSpec
> Alcatel-Lucent
> Y
> Y
> N
> http://www1.alcatel-lucent.com/doctypes/articlepaperlibrary/pdf/ATR2002Q4/T0212-SIP_Technology-EN.pdf
> Siemens
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.enterprise-communications.siemens.com/Products/Phones%20Clients/Desktop%20Phones/
> ~/media/6DAA007008EB4A5CA0212A6D12A49770.ashx
> AudioCodes
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.audiocodes.com/objects/sbc/nCite_4000.pdf
> Nextpoint
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.nextpointnetworks.com/files/NextPoint_SBC_USLTR_2008_hirez.pdf
> Acme Packet
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.acmepacket.com/html/page.asp?PageID={06E4AEBC-24E2-46CC-
> BA95-7C74288FA45B}
> Covergence
> Y
> Y
> Y
> http://www.covergence.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/4adf40f79f81482fff714c46d8e06832/misc/ssesb.pdf
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-
> bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dunkley
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:40 AM
> To: Eric Burger; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
>
> That would depend on whether you consider ISDN, and the like, to be
> SIP related or not :-)
>
> On a more serious note there is a requirement for tunnelling UK-ISUP
> within SIP messages. Also, UK-ISUP has recently been extended to
> allow BT-NUP messages to be tunnelled within - specifically so that
> BT-NUP can be passed across a SIP network for legacy interworking.
> This would result in SIP messages that can contain UK-ISUP messages,
> that can contain BT-NUP messages, which may contain DPNSS messages...
>
> What you jokingly mentioned below is absolutely horrible - but
> (within a national context) not as unlikely as it may seem!
>
> I have also heard of some interest in directly tunnelling DPNSS
> within SIP as well.
>
> However, I would be the first to admit that BT-NUP and so on have no
> place in a SIPconnect recommendation.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-
> bounces at sipforum.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric Burger
> Sent: 22 May 2008 10:17
> To: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
>
>
> I would offer this philosophy would lead us to standardize SIPconnect
> 1.1 to use ISDN, possibly choosing Q.921, Q.sig, or BT-NUP :-)
>
> On May 21, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Peter Dunkley wrote:
>
> > In my opinion any recommendation needs to take into account not just
> > best practice, but actual practice. Vilifying, or making life
> > difficult, for those who have pragmatically chosen something
> > different, and invested time and money in making it work, is not
> > going to contribute to the success of any recommendation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at: http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>
>
> NOTICE & DISCLAIMER
> This email including attachments (this "Document") is confidential
> and may contain legally privileged information. If you have
> received this Document in error please notify the sender immediately
> and delete this Document from your system without using, copying,
> disclosing or disseminating it or placing any reliance upon its
> contents. We cannot accept liability for any breaches of confidence
> arising through use of this Document.
>
> The information contained in this Document is provided solely for
> information purposes on an "as is" basis without warranty of any
> kind, either express or implied, including without limitation any
> implied warranty of satisfactory or merchantable quality, fitness
> for a particular purpose or freedom from error or infringement. The
> user relies on the information contained herein, and its accuracy or
> otherwise, entirely at their own risk.
>
> Any opinions expressed in this Document are those of the author and
> do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Telsis. We will not
> accept responsibility for any commitments made by our employees
> outside the scope of our business.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080523/12351b53/attachment.html
More information about the techwg
mailing list