One important thing to consider here is that we did not take care so far
of other protocols/transports than UDP (we think our design will allow
an easy integration of the others, but we did not 'port' the TCP and TLS
implementations over just yet). So a combination of our efforts will
Peter Higginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
04/25/2007 03:35:06 AM:
One important thing to consider here is that we did not take care so
far
of other protocols/transports than UDP (we think our design will
allow
an easy integration of the others, but we did not 'port' the TCP and
TLS
Dragos Vingarzan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/25/2007
03:00:46 AM:
Hello Charles, David, Olivier,
We at FOKUS, for a 3rd party :), just started about a month ago too,
working on such tools for benchmarking. However, we took a different
approach as we believe that there is a true value in
On 4/25/07, Dragos Vingarzan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while these things will be really appreciated, next we will need arrays,
vectors, lists, function calls and so on. And I hate to write s much
XML just to do simple operations what about including code in the
XML? :) I know that it
That would also work. I was thinking about translating the scenario into
C code and then compiling, linking to SIPp base (and what not) and
executing it... (it's late and this might never work ;-) )
Olivier Jacques wrote:
On 4/25/07, *Dragos Vingarzan* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
Hi David,
Verbeiren, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/24/2007
04:35:10 PM:
The biggest logistical problem I see with this patchset is that there
has
probably been quite a bit of divergence of your tree and the SIPp tree
in
the meantime. For example, your network changes are going to
