[SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
Peter Dunkley
peter at dunkley.me.uk
Fri May 23 18:50:18 EDT 2008
And of course those cost-sensitive service providers and call centres
are just being damned unreasonable by reducing their (not insignificant)
bandwidth costs by using UDP. Unreasonable despite the fact that using
UDP does not appear to be causing them any problems.
How ridiculous of them to want to make money!
Service providers don't adopt SIP because they love the technology.
They (generally) don't give a damn about the technology. They move to
SIP because an IP interconnect costs less than an E1/T1/J1/whatever
interconnect. They are cost sensitive and if UDP works for them, and it
costs them less, they will use UDP.
Francois Audet wrote:
> Damned!
>
> That must mean all the Web Servers out there running HTTP/TCP are wrong!
>
> The whole World Wide Web is wrong and should move to UDP!
>
> This SIP-is-special argument is silly and not supported by facts.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Hiers, David
> *Sent:* Friday, May 23, 2008 14:46
> *To:* Russell Bennett; techwg at sipforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)
>
> 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-41d3-9f20-7ffbddaf65b8/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] 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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