[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Sip] Question about Poll: Proposal relating to keepalive, TCP, and UDP usage in draft-ietf-sip-outbound

As I said, there are networks where TCP is less efficient than UDP and
there are no NAT complications to be concerned about.

I don't think outbound is so fundamental to the operation of SIP as to
force people to change out their transport protocol to get the benefits.
There are other ways that people have been solving this problem without
the benefit of a standard. I doubt that dropping support for UDP is
likely to get them to move away from these mechanisms faster than if
they had support for outbound with UDP.

Regards,
Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:jh at tutpro.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:49 PM
> To: Stucker, Brian (RICH1:AR00)
> Cc: Dean Willis; Cullen Jennings; SIP; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Question about Poll: Proposal relating to 
> keepalive, TCP, and UDP usage in draft-ietf-sip-outbound
> 
> Brian Stucker writes:
> 
>  > IMHO-- we should be flexible in this regard. Make sure 
> that the UDP  > behavior is at least minimally specified in 
> the standard (warts and all)  > and then work outside of 
> standards with customers so that they fully  > appreciate 
> (and properly value) what they're getting with TCP that  > 
> they're not getting with UDP. At that point I think the whole 
> debate  > will resolve itself because the number of 
> implementations wanting to use  > UDP will drop.
> 
> i would think that the drop will be faster if there is no 
> support for UDP in outbound.
> 
> -- juha
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip