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

Fri May 23 17:59:37 EDT 2008

Well, if these companies don't "listen to their techies", then they
won't read our spec anyways, and they will continue to produce 
implementations that do not interoperate.

Again, our goal is not to give our benediction to existing
dubious practices: it's to provide an implementation agreement
that will actually help in achieving interoperability.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dunkley
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 14:48
> To: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
> 
> And the list of SBC vendors is exhaustive?
> 
> While I agree that this thread is long and becoming tiresome, 
> I do not believe that this issue is closed.
> 
> I also do not agree that there is no rational reason for 
> dispute here. 
> Unless SIPconnect 1.1 clearly mandates backwards 
> compatibility with existing equipment there are likely to be 
> interoperability problems.
> 
> The majority of SIP vendors (and the members of the SIP Forum are a
> minority) will only adopt SIPconnect if they can clearly see 
> it making more money (it is required by their customers) or 
> reduces the costs of supporting their equipment in the field.
> 
> The enterprises and service providers will only care if 
> SIPconnect increases revenues and/or reduces OP-EX.
> 
> If adopting SIPconnect requires service providers to upgrade 
> or replace equipment it isn't going be at all attractive. If 
> it introduces interoperability issues with old or unusual 
> equipment it won't help vendors either.
> 
> Very few companies are going to go to the effort and expense 
> of SIPconnect just because the techies say it is the right 
> thing to do.
> 
> SIPconnect 1.0 defines behaviour for PBXs and so on that are 
> within networks - behind the SBCs. Am I wrong in presuming 
> that SIPconnect 1.1 will continue to describe the behaviour 
> of these devices (making the technology within networks very 
> much an issue)?
> 
> Peter
> 
> Russell Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Agreed that the list isn’t exhaustive. I also concede that some 
> > customers have UDP only equipment.
> >
> > However, one point I forgot to make is this:
> >
> > The SBC vendors (last 4 rows in the table) can accept all 3 
> > transports. Since they would typically be at the edge of the SP 
> > network – the SPs are only constrained by the choices that 
> they make, 
> > not the capabilities of the technology in either their network or 
> > their customers’.
> >
> > Therefore, the UDP vs. TCP discussion is effectively closed – if we 
> > mandate either/both there is no rational reason for anyone 
> to dispute
> > SC1.1 on grounds of transport preference/capability.
> >
> > Russell
> >
> > *From:* Marc Blanchet [mailto:marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca]
> > *Sent:* Friday, May 23, 2008 1:09 PM
> > *To:* Russell Bennett
> > *Cc:* techwg at sipforum.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
> >
> > there are other implementations that have some market share 
> which are 
> > not listed here, such as Asterisk, freeswitch and others.
> >
> > Marc.
> >
> > Le 08-05-23 à 14:53, Russell Bennett a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> > 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-41d3-9f20-7
> > ffbddaf65b8/OCS_VoIP_Guide.doc
> >
> > Cisco
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > 
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4t/12_4t11/FeatTLS.html#wp10921
> > 37
> >
> > IBM
> >
> > 	
> >
> > N
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > 
> http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/dw/lotus/sametime-s
> > ip.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_enableme
> > nt_services.htm&View=ProdTechSpec 
> > 
> <http://www.avaya.com/gcm/master-usa/en-us/products/offers/sip_enablem
> > ent_services.htm&View=ProdTechSpec>
> >
> > Alcatel-Lucent
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > N
> >
> > 	
> >
> > 
> http://www1.alcatel-lucent.com/doctypes/articlepaperlibrary/pdf/ATR200
> > 2Q4/T0212-SIP_Technology-EN.pdf
> >
> > Siemens
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > 
> http://www.enterprise-communications.siemens.com/Products/Phones%20Cli
> > ents/Desktop%20Phones/~/media/6DAA007008EB4A5CA0212A6D12A49770.ashx
> > 
> <http://www.enterprise-communications.siemens.com/Products/Phones%20Cl
> > 
> ients/Desktop%20Phones/%7E/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-BA9
> > 5-7C74288FA45B} 
> > 
> <http://www.acmepacket.com/html/page.asp?PageID=%7b06E4AEBC-24E2-46CC-
> > BA95-7C74288FA45B%7d>
> >
> > Covergence
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > Y
> >
> > 	
> >
> > 
> http://www.covergence.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/4adf40f79f81482fff714
> > c46d8e06832/misc/ssesb.pdf
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]On
> >
> > Behalf Of Eric Burger
> >
> > Sent: 22 May 2008 10:17
> >
> > To: techwg at sipforum.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:techwg at sipforum.org> 
> > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> >
> > -----
> >
> > IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006, http://www.ipv6book.ca
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 