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

Russell Bennett Russell.Bennett at microsoft.com
Fri May 23 19:01:25 EDT 2008


Sorry Peter, I am really not getting your point.  Surely the biggest companies have the majority market share, by definition.  And the SIP/VoIP realm is the only one under consideration by the SIPconnect techwg, is it not?

I have conceded that the table isn't exhaustive.  Where I drew the line between major players and the rest was largely arbitrary.  The only additional 'player' I would have included was NEC, but I couldn't find the documentary evidence that contained the data I was looking for.

Perhaps you would like to submit your own data?

Russell

-----Original Message-----
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dunkley
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:41 PM
To: techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

A table that only lists large companies, with large numbers of
engineers, and teams dedicated to following specifications, or companies
that are entirely SIP/VoIP focussed is not terribly indicative of the
total marketplace.

I can accept that the SIP Forum needs to move forward, guard SIP and
educate the market place, but surely it needs to be pragmatic and
realistic too.  The people on this list need to accept that what is
deployed in many real networks does not (and in some cases may never)
conform to their ideals.

I will say here that I generally agree with those ideals, and I believe
that the SIP Forum should encourage vendors to move towards them.
However, consideration must be given to what is actually working, in the
field, today.

Peter

Russell Bennett wrote:
> As Eric predicted, Asterisk is available *with* TCP, as of 10/19/07, according to this:
>
> http://blog.brickaloch.com/index.php/2007/10/19/sip-tcp-support-in-asterisk/
>
> But, once again, the table was indicative, not exhaustive.
>
> Russell
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Eric Burger
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:06 PM
> To: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
>
> Does anyone care what Asterisk supports?  If so, isn't the model that
> someone will contribute TCP support for their SIPconnect 1.1-compliant
> version?
>
> On May 23, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Peter Dunkley wrote:
>
>
>> Has your research found any information on the cost of these upgrades?
>>
>> If a customer has a choice between buying/using/connecting piece of
>> equipment X and Y, the only significant (to them) difference being
>> that to use X they will have to pay to replace or upgrade existing
>> piece of equipment Z, they will choose Y every time.
>>
>> Isn't Asterisk still UDP only?  This is in use as a PBX and Media
>> Server at many, many, Enterprises, and being free probably has a
>> larger install base than products from many of these vendors, and
>> being free is going to be difficult to get accurate numbers for.
>> Further, a large number of different bits of smaller vendors
>> equipment (if they were taken cummulatively) that only supported UDP
>> could have a larger total install base than products from one bigger
>> company.
>>
>> Some, more adventurous, service providers have developed their own
>> systems to do clever, bespoke, things.  Where will they get upgrades?
>>
>> I am not proposing that the recommendation be based just around the
>> capability of Asterisk - just pointing out that the table you have
>> provided is not comprehensive, it does not provide any indication of
>> the size of installed base (and what proportion may/do need
>> upgrades), and does not give any indication of likely upgrade costs.
>>
>> Depending upon how freely, easily, and cheaply, the upgrades are, it
>> is quite possible for the experiences of there still being a lot of
>> UDP only equipment out there could very well be correct.
>>
>> I have found myself on the end of a phone to customers and support
>> engineers with problems many times before, and the attitude from
>> them has almost always been:
>>       * I don't care what the specification says
>>       * I don't care that it is the other vendors equipment that is at
>> fault
>>       * This is costing me money/hassle
>>       * Fix it right now
>> Please ensure that UDP will be supported by SIPconnect 1.1 devices
>> and that there is no possibility of anyone reading the specification
>> thinking that it is not.  Please ensure that there is no confusion,
>> and ensure backwards compatability, by either:
>>       * Explicitly mentioning that RFC 3261 compliance is mandatory.  Not
>> mentioning either TCP or UDP as MUST or MAY (as that is covered by
>> the RFC 3261 bit).  Indicating that TCP is the recommended default
>> (or mandating that a SIPconnect compliant device MUST attempt to use
>> TCP first before falling back to UDP).
>>       * or, Explicitly mentioning that RFC 3261 compliance is mandatory.
>> If you need to make TCP a MUST, make UDP a MUST too.  Indicate that
>> TCP is the recommended default (or mandating that a SIPconnect
>> compliant device MUST attempt to use TCP first before falling back
>> to UDP).
>> If you mentioned one transport as a MUST and do not mention the
>> other at all (or only as a MAY) it is inevitable that someone,
>> somewhere, will assume that they do not need to use UDP at all.
>> Unless explictly indicated otherwise (in the same section of the
>> recommendation) they will ASSUME that the SIPconnect recommendation
>> overrides the RFC.
>>
>> I am all for avoiding interoperability issues, but my belief is that
>> there are more potential interop issues between SIPconnect and non-
>> SIPconnect devices than between just SIPconnect devices.  These are
>> the ones that will hurt the most - particularly if those devices are
>> old/unsupported/bespoke, and anyone who believes things can just be
>> upgraded is hopelessly optimistic.
>>
>> Peter
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-
>> bounces at sipforum.org]On Behalf Of Russell Bennett
>> Sent: 23 May 2008 19:54
>> 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-41d3-9f20-7ffbddaf65b8/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
>>
>> 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
>

_______________________________________________
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg



More information about the techwg mailing list