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

Peter Dunkley peter at dunkley.me.uk
Fri May 23 17:59:58 EDT 2008


This brings us back to a question that was asked days ago and never 
really answered.

What is the point of SIPconnect 1.1?

1) Do we want a wonderful, forward looking recommendation, that mandates 
best practice?

2) Or, do we want a pragmatic recommendation, that makes use of best 
practice but takes account of current (far from best) practice?

I vote for 2.  Option 1 is a nice technical exercise, but I believe it 
will be of little value in the real world.  As nice as it is from a 
technical point of view you will be encouraging the accountants, who 
hold the vendors engineering purse strings and customers budgets, to 
avoid it like the plague.

If the laggards remain in the majority they win (if they have a 
significant minority it could be argued that they also win as there 
would to many of them to ignore).  Being left behind may not be a 
disadvantage to them, and the take up (and therefore value) of 
SIPconnect will be reduced.

Peter

Francois Audet wrote:
> Freeswitch supports UDP, TCP and TLS. Not Asterisk.
>  
> To re-iterate, this is not a race to the bottom. If we mandate TCP in 
> 1.1, then these laggards will be non-compliant. It's their choice. 
> They can still claim compliance to 1.0.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
>     [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Marc Blanchet
>     *Sent:* Friday, May 23, 2008 13:09
>     *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-41d3-9f20-7ffbddaf65b8/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
>>     <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
>>     <http://www.enterprise-communications.siemens.com/Products/Phones%20Clients/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-BA95-7C74288FA45B}
>>     <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/4adf40f79f81482fff714c46d8e06832/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
>   



More information about the techwg mailing list