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

Fri May 23 17:45:41 EDT 2008

TCP may be supported, but it can be costly.  As I mentioned in a
previous post, there can be scaling differences between implementations
of UDP and TCP.

Here's a nice paper on a test of one implementation:

http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/nahum/papers/sigmetrics07-sip-perf.
pdf

While not directly related to SIP Trunking, the results are nevertheless
interesting.

One of my vendors reports a 25% hit when moving from UDP to TCP, with
some TCP-specific ugliness when failing over between redundant systems. 

I'm a fan of reliability, and would really like to be *forced* into
running the most reliable transport protocol possible (TCP, SCTP, etc).
However, as long as UDP is an option that can scale to greater loads on
the same platform, there canl be considerable budgetary pressure to run
UDP.

Thanks,

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

________________________________

From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On Behalf Of Russell Bennett
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 11:54 AM
To: techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

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-41d3-9f20-7ff
bddaf65b8/OCS_VoIP_Guide.doc
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/b/6/db641148-427b-41d3-9f20-7f
fbddaf65b8/OCS_VoIP_Guide.doc>  

Cisco

Y

Y

Y

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4t/12_4t11/FeatTLS.html#wp1092137
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4t/12_4t11/FeatTLS.html#wp109213
7>  

IBM

N

Y

Y

http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/dw/lotus/sametime-sip
.pdf
<http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/dw/lotus/sametime-si
p.pdf>  

Nortel

Y

Y

Y

http://www142.nortelnetworks.com/techdocs/CS1K_5_0/pdf/NN43001-564_01.05
_NRS.pdf
<http://www142.nortelnetworks.com/techdocs/CS1K_5_0/pdf/NN43001-564_01.0
5_NRS.pdf>  

Avaya

Y

Y

Y

http://www.avaya.com/gcm/master-usa/en-us/products/offers/sip_enablement
_services.htm&View=ProdTechSpec
<http://www.avaya.com/gcm/master-usa/en-us/products/offers/sip_enablemen
t_services.htm&View=ProdTechSpec>  

Alcatel-Lucent

Y

Y

N

http://www1.alcatel-lucent.com/doctypes/articlepaperlibrary/pdf/ATR2002Q
4/T0212-SIP_Technology-EN.pdf
<http://www1.alcatel-lucent.com/doctypes/articlepaperlibrary/pdf/ATR2002
Q4/T0212-SIP_Technology-EN.pdf>  

Siemens

Y

Y

Y

http://www.enterprise-communications.siemens.com/Products/Phones%20Clien
ts/Desktop%20Phones/~/media/6DAA007008EB4A5CA0212A6D12A49770.ashx
<http://www.enterprise-communications.siemens.com/Products/Phones%20Clie
nts/Desktop%20Phones/~/media/6DAA007008EB4A5CA0212A6D12A49770.ashx>  

AudioCodes

Y

Y

Y

http://www.audiocodes.com/objects/sbc/nCite_4000.pdf
<http://www.audiocodes.com/objects/sbc/nCite_4000.pdf>  

Nextpoint

Y

Y

Y

http://www.nextpointnetworks.com/files/NextPoint_SBC_USLTR_2008_hirez.pd
f
<http://www.nextpointnetworks.com/files/NextPoint_SBC_USLTR_2008_hirez.p
df>  

Acme Packet

Y

Y

Y

http://www.acmepacket.com/html/page.asp?PageID={06E4AEBC-24E2-46CC-BA95-
7C74288FA45B}
<http://www.acmepacket.com/html/page.asp?PageID=%7b06E4AEBC-24E2-46CC-BA
95-7C74288FA45B%7d>  

Covergence

Y

Y

Y

http://www.covergence.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/4adf40f79f81482fff714c4
6d8e06832/misc/ssesb.pdf
<http://www.covergence.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/4adf40f79f81482fff714c
46d8e06832/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

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20080523/0f1af62f/attachment-0001.html 