Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Matt Riddell]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hans Witvliet wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 16:05 +1300, Matt Riddell wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Has anyone done any integration with this?
>>
>> All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
>>
>> Any pointers?
> 
> 
> afaik, one of my colleages has done something with it.
> Instead of asterisk-1.4 plus (open)ser i convinced him in trying just
> asterisk-1.6. needed just one additional parameter: use tcp. That's all.
> 
> 
> Want any specific details?
> I'll ask when i see him again...

Yeah, that would be cool thanks, just reply to this thread, I've flagged
it in Thunderbird so it should show up pretty easy :)

Heh, funny but OT: Thunderbird is not in the Thunderbird dictionary :)

- --
Kind Regards,

Matt Riddell
Director
___

http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution)
http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.venturevoip.com/newrssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH1yJcDQNt8rg0Kp4RAg84AJ99fOsjfsguSGy5OQsLwpDPFvutZwCdE4kB
GLK+yalp2UpWBnuco7r/KSQ=
=0AR4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Matt Riddell]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Joe Pukepail wrote:
> We are interested in getting something working also, let me know how it
> goes.  We are currently using LCS 2005 for IM, the only thing we want to add
> is the ability to update the "On the Phone" status in communicator.  I have
> a test system on 1.6, but so far have been unable to update the presence
> information, would be interested if anyone has been able to do it will
> Office communications server.

Ok, its a deal, if/when either of us get it up and going, we'll post
back here with a howto for everyone's benefit.  I'll race you :D

- --
Kind Regards,

Matt Riddell
Director
___

http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution)
http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.venturevoip.com/newrssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH1yIUDQNt8rg0Kp4RAvpNAKCwyuEKAFNZvII8/Qsgvpou/xw0UwCcCCHK
P8H5Y+vS31v9hZUw6p07cPI=
=Z6po
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Matt Riddell]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Razza wrote:
> On 10/03/2008, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Has anyone done any integration with this?
>>
>> All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
>>
>> Any pointers?
>>
> If you are looking to use "Enterprise Voice" (voice breakout between the OCS
> and PBX environment) as opposed to setting up "Remote Call Control". It
> might be simpler to employ a seperate MS supported SIP-E1/T1 gateway, and
> fitting an E1/T1 card to the PBX(s).
> This would also give a good demarcation point.

Cool, this sounds like a much better idea from my point of view.  To
tell you the truth I'd rather not deal with it at all, but lately we've
had numerous requests for proposals that have included "integration with
OCS".

- --
Kind Regards,

Matt Riddell
Director
___

http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution)
http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.venturevoip.com/newrssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH1yHZDQNt8rg0Kp4RAnkzAJ9outKomD3VnkFQm7kdFlXEAdxDlgCfYqxM
nNcDNhrpdVJLWuCjDExnKic=
=qS/7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Hans Witvliet]

On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 16:05 +1300, Matt Riddell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Has anyone done any integration with this?
> 
> All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
> 
> Any pointers?


afaik, one of my colleages has done something with it.
Instead of asterisk-1.4 plus (open)ser i convinced him in trying just
asterisk-1.6. needed just one additional parameter: use tcp. That's all.


Want any specific details?
I'll ask when i see him again...


hw

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[shadowym]

All arguments aside, I'll guarantee you MS OCS is much less stable than
Asterisk/Linux, much more buggy, and will be for the forseeable future.  It
took M$ 5-10 years to get Exchange right.

So in a few more years I'll have another look at it but I won't be a guinea
pig for now.

Sounds like things will be heading towards SIP/TCP in the future but if M$
made their implementation 'standard' it would be a precedent for them.

-Original Message-
From: Tzafrir Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:32 AM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server





Right. Asterisk never crashes. Asterisk is completely solid.

> 
> At the end, if you do not answer a call some else will!!!

Three are not convincing enough. I think the following is more
convincing:

  SIP/TCP will eat your babies!

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir




___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Joe Pukepail]

We are interested in getting something working also, let me know how it
goes.  We are currently using LCS 2005 for IM, the only thing we want to add
is the ability to update the "On the Phone" status in communicator.  I have
a test system on 1.6, but so far have been unable to update the presence
information, would be interested if anyone has been able to do it will
Office communications server.


On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Razza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 10/03/2008, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone done any integration with this?
> >
> > All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of
> > SIP.
> >
> > Any pointers?
> >
>
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Razza]

On 10/03/2008, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Has anyone done any integration with this?
>
> All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
>
> Any pointers?
>
If you are looking to use "Enterprise Voice" (voice breakout between the OCS
and PBX environment) as opposed to setting up "Remote Call Control". It
might be simpler to employ a seperate MS supported SIP-E1/T1 gateway, and
fitting an E1/T1 card to the PBX(s).
This would also give a good demarcation point.
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Senad Jordanovic]

Razza wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, *Senad Jordanovic* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
> 
> I would suggest to you learning how to use text emails and quoting first
> then you may have some responses that may be your worth while.
> 
> Clearly, you keep responding!
> Oh and move out of the dark ages and get a decent mail reader.
>  

there is a say...

"never start a silly fight first, but always make sure you finish it"

Guess, which one are you?



Senad

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Razza]

On 11/03/2008, Senad Jordanovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would suggest to you learning how to use text emails and quoting first
> then you may have some responses that may be your worth while.
>
Clearly, you keep responding!
Oh and move out of the dark ages and get a decent mail reader.
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Tzafrir Cohen]

Just to clarify:

In this thread I'd appreciate to hear some new things. I'm sure that
even if that new software from Microsoft is of bad quality, we have an
interesting idea or two ti pick from it.

As for the arguments of stability and that: we have all heard, read,
said and wrote them a 1000 times already. So I don't see any point in
rehashing them.

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Senad Jordanovic]

Milton Calnek wrote:
> 
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> TV sets and such are simple enough. But when the device gets more
>> sofficticated then, yes: reboot tends to become a first reaction.
> 
> You say "first reaction" like there's some other choice with Windows.
> 
>> Right. Asterisk never crashes. Asterisk is completely solid.
>>
> 
> It's amazing what happens when you say "Sure, look under the hood!!"
> The free software community is full of examples of open source being 
> more stable with fewer bugs than their closed source, commercial
> competitors.
> 

Of course it crashes... in wrongs hands :)


Senad

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Milton Calnek]

Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> 
> TV sets and such are simple enough. But when the device gets more
> sofficticated then, yes: reboot tends to become a first reaction.

You say "first reaction" like there's some other choice with Windows.

> 
> Right. Asterisk never crashes. Asterisk is completely solid.
> 

It's amazing what happens when you say "Sure, look under the hood!!"
The free software community is full of examples of open source being 
more stable with fewer bugs than their closed source, commercial
competitors.

-- 
Milton Calnek BSc, A/Slt(Ret.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
306-717-8737


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Raj Jain]

I'd concur that allowing SIP to be transported over UDP was one of the
biggest mistakes made in the initial protocol design. In addition to
the issues stated below (such as IP fragmentation and how that impacts
NAT traversal), there are other unsolvable problems w/ SIP/UDP such as
when a request is smaller than path MTU and is therefore sent over UDP
but the response exceeds the MTU size - how do you deliver the
response then?.

If there is ever a SIP 3.0, I believe there is enough consensus that
it'll not support UDP transport.

--
Raj


On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Philipp von Klitzing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>  > What is the logic of them using SIP over TCP? Is this a broad industry
>  > trend? Or just the latest attempt to get around SIP/NAT issues?
>
>  I remember a quote of Henning Schulzrinne where he states that having
>  designed SIP with UDP in mind was the biggest mistake he (and Mark
>  Handle?) were to be found guilty of. I am not sure if this is what's
>  driving Microsoft's decisions, my guess is that this is/was mostly driven
>  by security reasons (and the new focus of Microsoft on security aspects).
>
>  Cheers, Philipp
>
>
>  * Taken from http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4168.html:
>
>  3.1.  Advantages over UDP
>
>All the advantages that SCTP has over UDP regarding SIP transport are
>also shared by TCP.  Below, there is a list of the general advantages
>that a connection-oriented transport protocol such as TCP or SCTP has
>over a connection-less transport protocol such as UDP.
>
>Fast Retransmit: SCTP can quickly determine the loss of a packet,
>   because of its usage of SACK and a mechanism that sends SACK
>   messages faster than normal when losses are detected.  The result
>   is that losses of SIP messages can be detected much faster than
>   when SIP is run over UDP (detection will take at least 500 ms, if
>   not more).  Note that TCP SACK exists as well, and TCP also has a
>   fast retransmit option.  Over an existing connection, this results
>   in faster call setup times under conditions of packet loss, which
>   is very desirable.  This is probably the most significant
>   advantage of SCTP for SIP transport.
>
>Congestion Control: SCTP maintains congestion control over the entire
>   association.  For SIP, this means that the aggregate rate of
>   messages between two entities can be controlled.  When SIP is run
>   over TCP, the same advantages are afforded.  However, when run
>   over UDP, SIP provides less effective congestion control.  This is
>   because congestion state (measured in terms of the UDP retransmit
>   interval) is computed on a transaction-by-transaction basis,
>   rather than across all transactions.  Thus, congestion control
>   performance is similar to opening N parallel TCP connections, as
>   opposed to sending N messages over one TCP connection.
>
>Transport-Layer Fragmentation: SCTP and TCP provide transport-layer
>   fragmentation.  If a SIP message is larger than the MTU size, it
>   is fragmented at the transport layer.  When UDP is used,
>   fragmentation occurs at the IP layer.  IP fragmentation increases
>   the likelihood of having packet losses and makes NAT and firewall
>   traversal difficult, if not impossible.  This feature will become
>   important if the size of SIP messages grows dramatically.
>
>
>  * Quote from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-sip-dtls-01:
>
>There has been considerable discussion of why SIP needs DTLS when we
>have TLS.  This is the wrong question.  The right question is why SIP
>has UDP and TCP (not to mention SCTP).  There are two reasons for
>believing that UDP is likely to be an important protocol in SIP for
>the foreseeable future.
>
>o  In theory, there is no problem building systems that terminate a
>   million TCP connections on a single host.  In practice, the common
>   operating systems used for building SIP aggregation devices make
>   this impossible.  To date, no one has demonstrated terminating
>   over 100k SIP TCP connections to a single host.  Doing that many
>   connections with UDP has not been difficult.
>
>o  If we want to talk about "running code" for SIP, it's UDP.  Unless
>   UDP is deprecated for SIP, it is important to provide a reasonable
>   level of security for it.
>
>
>
>
>  ___
>  -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
>  asterisk-users mailing list
>  To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:49:23AM +, Senad Jordanovic wrote:

> I have been a MS windows desktop user for a while as many other people 
> have. It mostly works except at times one needs to maintain/repair what 
> one bought. I have switched :)
> 
> Imagine, repairing an engine of your brand new car you just bought? 
> Imagine "restarting" your TV because it just froze?  What if your shoes 
> have "just" changed colour to "blue screen"?

TV sets and such are simple enough. But when the device gets more
sofficticated then, yes: reboot tends to become a first reaction.
routers and similar devices (even linux-based ones) don't provide you
much debugging help. And are known to crash occasionally.

> It will just not "pass", will it? ... You will DEMAND a service for your 
> car/TV,shoes or you may return it or whatever.

With such devices the software is often too buggy because there was not
enough time to develop and debug it.

> 
> So.. Imagine how much your business will be affected with a phone SYSTEM 
> based on a such operating system, one which can not even meet basic 
> desktop user requirements let alone crucial every day in/out business 
> communications tool like a phone system.

Right. Asterisk never crashes. Asterisk is completely solid.

> 
> At the end, if you do not answer a call some else will!!!

Three are not convincing enough. I think the following is more
convincing:

  SIP/TCP will eat your babies!

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Senad Jordanovic]

Razza wrote:
> Imagine, repairing an engine of your brand new car you just bought?
> Imagine "restarting" your TV because it just froze?  What if your shoes
> have "just" changed colour to "blue screen"?
> It will just not "pass", will it? ... You will DEMAND a service for your
> car/TV,shoes or you may return it or whatever.
> 
> So.. Imagine how much your business will be affected with a phone SYSTEM
> based on a such operating system, one which can not even meet basic
> desktop user requirements let alone crucial every day in/out business
> communications tool like a phone system.
> 
> At the end, if you do not answer a call some else will!!!
> 
> 
> Senad Jordanovic
> www.bicomsystems.com 
> 
> What utter stereotypical dross.

I would suggest to you learning how to use text emails and quoting first 
then you may have some responses that may be your worth while.


Senad

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Razza]

>
> Imagine, repairing an engine of your brand new car you just bought?
> Imagine "restarting" your TV because it just froze?  What if your shoes
> have "just" changed colour to "blue screen"?
> It will just not "pass", will it? ... You will DEMAND a service for your
> car/TV,shoes or you may return it or whatever.
>
> So.. Imagine how much your business will be affected with a phone SYSTEM
> based on a such operating system, one which can not even meet basic
> desktop user requirements let alone crucial every day in/out business
> communications tool like a phone system.
>
> At the end, if you do not answer a call some else will!!!
>
>
> Senad Jordanovic
> www.bicomsystems.com
>
> What utter stereotypical dross. btw OCS is much more than a phone system.
Every role in an OCS implementation is resilient (through hardware load
balances) excluding the mediation serves, you make these resilient by using
numerous routes.

All server/server connections are MTLS, so TCP is a must.
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Senad Jordanovic]

Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:38 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is the logic of them using SIP over TCP? Is this a broad industry
>>  trend? Or just the latest attempt to get around SIP/NAT issues?
>>
>>  Michael Graves
>>  mgraves  mstvp.com
>>  o(713) 861-4005
>>  c(713) 201-1262
>>  sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  skype mjgraves
>>  FWD 54245
>>
> 
> I would imagine it's because they plan on doing all kinds of "neat"
> stuff with SIP including video, TXT, Windows Updates, who knows...
> SIP over UDP has some pretty serious packet fragmentation issues.  If
> you end up with a large enough SDP or something that causes a SIP
> packet to grow larger than the smallest MTU in the path between your
> two endpoints it doesn't work (no fragmentation support with SIP over
> UDP).  SIP over TCP does not have this problem.
> 
> Also, you need SIP TCP support for TLS...
> 

Well...

I have been a MS windows desktop user for a while as many other people 
have. It mostly works except at times one needs to maintain/repair what 
one bought. I have switched :)

Imagine, repairing an engine of your brand new car you just bought? 
Imagine "restarting" your TV because it just froze?  What if your shoes 
have "just" changed colour to "blue screen"?
It will just not "pass", will it? ... You will DEMAND a service for your 
car/TV,shoes or you may return it or whatever.

So.. Imagine how much your business will be affected with a phone SYSTEM 
based on a such operating system, one which can not even meet basic 
desktop user requirements let alone crucial every day in/out business 
communications tool like a phone system.

At the end, if you do not answer a call some else will!!!


Senad Jordanovic
www.bicomsystems.com







___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Philipp von Klitzing]

Hi!

> What is the logic of them using SIP over TCP? Is this a broad industry
> trend? Or just the latest attempt to get around SIP/NAT issues?

I remember a quote of Henning Schulzrinne where he states that having 
designed SIP with UDP in mind was the biggest mistake he (and Mark 
Handle?) were to be found guilty of. I am not sure if this is what's 
driving Microsoft's decisions, my guess is that this is/was mostly driven 
by security reasons (and the new focus of Microsoft on security aspects).

Cheers, Philipp


* Taken from http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4168.html:

3.1.  Advantages over UDP

   All the advantages that SCTP has over UDP regarding SIP transport are
   also shared by TCP.  Below, there is a list of the general advantages
   that a connection-oriented transport protocol such as TCP or SCTP has
   over a connection-less transport protocol such as UDP.

   Fast Retransmit: SCTP can quickly determine the loss of a packet,
  because of its usage of SACK and a mechanism that sends SACK
  messages faster than normal when losses are detected.  The result
  is that losses of SIP messages can be detected much faster than
  when SIP is run over UDP (detection will take at least 500 ms, if
  not more).  Note that TCP SACK exists as well, and TCP also has a
  fast retransmit option.  Over an existing connection, this results
  in faster call setup times under conditions of packet loss, which
  is very desirable.  This is probably the most significant
  advantage of SCTP for SIP transport.

   Congestion Control: SCTP maintains congestion control over the entire
  association.  For SIP, this means that the aggregate rate of
  messages between two entities can be controlled.  When SIP is run
  over TCP, the same advantages are afforded.  However, when run
  over UDP, SIP provides less effective congestion control.  This is
  because congestion state (measured in terms of the UDP retransmit
  interval) is computed on a transaction-by-transaction basis,
  rather than across all transactions.  Thus, congestion control
  performance is similar to opening N parallel TCP connections, as
  opposed to sending N messages over one TCP connection.

   Transport-Layer Fragmentation: SCTP and TCP provide transport-layer
  fragmentation.  If a SIP message is larger than the MTU size, it
  is fragmented at the transport layer.  When UDP is used,
  fragmentation occurs at the IP layer.  IP fragmentation increases
  the likelihood of having packet losses and makes NAT and firewall
  traversal difficult, if not impossible.  This feature will become
  important if the size of SIP messages grows dramatically.


* Quote from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-sip-dtls-01:

   There has been considerable discussion of why SIP needs DTLS when we
   have TLS.  This is the wrong question.  The right question is why SIP
   has UDP and TCP (not to mention SCTP).  There are two reasons for
   believing that UDP is likely to be an important protocol in SIP for
   the foreseeable future.

   o  In theory, there is no problem building systems that terminate a
  million TCP connections on a single host.  In practice, the common
  operating systems used for building SIP aggregation devices make
  this impossible.  To date, no one has demonstrated terminating
  over 100k SIP TCP connections to a single host.  Doing that many
  connections with UDP has not been difficult.

   o  If we want to talk about "running code" for SIP, it's UDP.  Unless
  UDP is deprecated for SIP, it is important to provide a reasonable
  level of security for it.


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Kristian Kielhofner]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:38 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the logic of them using SIP over TCP? Is this a broad industry
>  trend? Or just the latest attempt to get around SIP/NAT issues?
>
>  Michael Graves
>  mgraves  mstvp.com
>  o(713) 861-4005
>  c(713) 201-1262
>  sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  skype mjgraves
>  FWD 54245
>

I would imagine it's because they plan on doing all kinds of "neat"
stuff with SIP including video, TXT, Windows Updates, who knows...
SIP over UDP has some pretty serious packet fragmentation issues.  If
you end up with a large enough SDP or something that causes a SIP
packet to grow larger than the smallest MTU in the path between your
two endpoints it doesn't work (no fragmentation support with SIP over
UDP).  SIP over TCP does not have this problem.

Also, you need SIP TCP support for TLS...

-- 
Kristian Kielhofner

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Michiel van Baak]

On 15:38, Mon 10 Mar 08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What is the logic of them using SIP over TCP? Is this a broad industry
> trend? Or just the latest attempt to get around SIP/NAT issues?

Their setup implements some 'non standard extensions' on the
SIP standard and I think it was easier to do it in TCP.
(probably because they bought it from someone else, and that
someone did it it TCP)

Of course, because I'm not a MS developer that's only
guessing.

> 
> Michael Graves
> mgraves  mstvp.com
> o(713) 861-4005
> c(713) 201-1262
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skype mjgraves
> FWD 54245
> 
> 
> > ---- Original Message 
> > Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server
> > From: "Kristian Kielhofner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, March 10, 2008 5:18 pm
> > To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
> > 
> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > >  Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > >  Has anyone done any integration with this?
> > >
> > >  All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of 
> > > SIP.
> > >
> > >  Any pointers?
> > >
> > >  - --
> > >  Kind Regards,
> > >
> > >  Matt Riddell
> > >  Director
> > Matt,
> >   I believe OCS only supports SIP over TCP.  You'll either need to use
> > Asterisk 1.6/trunk with SIP TCP or install SER/OpenSER as a UDP-TCP
> > proxy.
> > -- 
> > Kristian Kielhofner
> > ___
> > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> > asterisk-users mailing list
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> 
> 
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

-- 

Michiel van Baak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michiel.vanbaak.eu
GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x71C946BD

"Why is it drug addicts and computer aficionados are both called users?"


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[shadowym]

I would rather stick needles in my eyes but that's just me.

-Original Message-
From: Matt Riddell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:05 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Has anyone done any integration with this?

All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.

Any pointers?

- --
Kind Regards,

Matt Riddell
Director
___

http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution)
http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.venturevoip.com/newrssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH1KVoDQNt8rg0Kp4RAgSfAJ0aXGIkKi6kGAjZK8TtSV2mMj79qQCdHhAS
1jZ9sjtsTJ3O1R9J3giztw8=
=Mlnt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[mgraves]

What is the logic of them using SIP over TCP? Is this a broad industry
trend? Or just the latest attempt to get around SIP/NAT issues?

Michael Graves
mgraves  mstvp.com
o(713) 861-4005
c(713) 201-1262
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype mjgraves
FWD 54245


>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server
> From: "Kristian Kielhofner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, March 10, 2008 5:18 pm
> To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
> 
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >  Hash: SHA1
> >
> >  Has anyone done any integration with this?
> >
> >  All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
> >
> >  Any pointers?
> >
> >  - --
> >  Kind Regards,
> >
> >  Matt Riddell
> >  Director
> Matt,
>   I believe OCS only supports SIP over TCP.  You'll either need to use
> Asterisk 1.6/trunk with SIP TCP or install SER/OpenSER as a UDP-TCP
> proxy.
> -- 
> Kristian Kielhofner
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Kristian Kielhofner]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Has anyone done any integration with this?
>
>  All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
>
>  Any pointers?
>
>  - --
>  Kind Regards,
>
>  Matt Riddell
>  Director

Matt,

  I believe OCS only supports SIP over TCP.  You'll either need to use
Asterisk 1.6/trunk with SIP TCP or install SER/OpenSER as a UDP-TCP
proxy.

-- 
Kristian Kielhofner

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Andrew Latham]

They very likely purchased or licensed an engine from someone.  Use
Wireshark and compare it to other SIP proxies/servers/gateways.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Matt Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Has anyone done any integration with this?
>
>  All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.
>
>  Any pointers?
>
>  - --
>  Kind Regards,
>
>  Matt Riddell
>  Director
>  ___
>
>  http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution)
>  http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
>  http://www.venturevoip.com/newrssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
>  -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>  Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
>  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>  iD8DBQFH1KVoDQNt8rg0Kp4RAgSfAJ0aXGIkKi6kGAjZK8TtSV2mMj79qQCdHhAS
>  1jZ9sjtsTJ3O1R9J3giztw8=
>  =Mlnt
>  -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>  ___
>  -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
>  asterisk-users mailing list
>  To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>



-- 
/*
 Andrew Latham
 LATHAMA (lay-th-ham-eh)
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 TuxTone Inc.
 http://www.TuxTone.com
*/

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[David Cook]

>
> Has anyone done any integration with this?
>
> All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of
> SIP.
>
> Any pointers?
>

What!? Microsoft implementing something not compliant with official
standards. Your kidding?


Sorry Matt, no advice here but I just couldn't resist.
--
David Cook

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

[asterisk-users] Microsoft Office Communications Server

[Matt Riddell]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Has anyone done any integration with this?

All I know so far is that it appears to use some non standard form of SIP.

Any pointers?

- --
Kind Regards,

Matt Riddell
Director
___

http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution)
http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.venturevoip.com/newrssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH1KVoDQNt8rg0Kp4RAgSfAJ0aXGIkKi6kGAjZK8TtSV2mMj79qQCdHhAS
1jZ9sjtsTJ3O1R9J3giztw8=
=Mlnt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users