[JDEV] Re: Voice over IP

[Asif Ahsan]

I think the question is not SIP or H.323 but whether we 
should use XMPP to encapsulate the voice and call setup 
packets ?


Thanks,
Asif Ahsan









On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:03:45 -0400
  "Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG" 
<jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com> wrote:
>Mike Prince wrote:
>>
>  SIP doesn't need a registrar or gatekeeper.  One of the 
>reasons I like
>> it.
>
>As long as you can always be in a stateless mode that is 
>true. Once you need
>to be tastefull, or if you require authentication this 
>not true anymore.
>
>> Good thing about SIP is that it brought heavy-weights 
>>like Microsoft
>> on-board to push home NAT vendors to make devices 
>>friendly to software
>> that needs to get through.  Though it's still a work in 
>>progress.  Who
>> says M$ and it's ilk aren't good for something ;)
>
>MSFT SIP is only a flavor of SIP. And unless used it in 
>TCP or TLS it does
>not go through NAT or firewall. In that later case you 
>need to add edge
>proxies to the design which tends to add a layer of 
>complexity.
>
>> I don't know the current state of SIP clients.  But I 
>>still feel working
>> towards established standards like SIP gives everyone a 
>>much greater
>> chance of interoperability.  Good luck going to a 
>>telco/next gen SP and
>> convincing them to either switch protocols to XMPP or 
>>support another
>> one.  Not likely.
>
>SIP has a lot of hype behind it and a number of 
>corporation have endorsed it
>at an early stage. A large number of these early players 
>are now looking
>back at it and not finding it so "friendly". On the telco 
>side, there are a
>few deployment, but not as massive as expected. And there 
>are a large number
>of telcos that are also looking at XMPP. Anyway telcos 
>tend to become
>agnostics as long as they have customers... That said it 
>is not at all
>difficult to convince them to look at both protocols, 
>because XMPP is a
>reality and some of their corporate customers are asking 
>for it in the IM
>space. Not to say that a number of telcos are phasing out 
>any early
>investments they had made in SIMPLE because it never 
>worked or scaled as
>expected.
>
>I think the above statement is not entirely correct, and 
>probably a little
>exaggerated. SIP and XMPP are to coexist in the telco 
>world, that is an
>established fact. The fact that telcos have invested 
>heavily in SIP on the
>voice side make them more likely to prefer SIP as the 
>session protocol of
>choice. But we have seen requests that are leaning the 
>other way.
>
>> The challenge is getting service developers to adopt 
>>Jabber as their IM
>> solution.  Unless the app is very simple, new bells and 
>>whistles need to
>> be added to the set of IM capabilities, in which case an 
>>open source
>> solution shines.  Try calling Redmond or Dulles and ask 
>>them to hack in
>> your new feature set, or better yet give you the source 
>>code so you can
>> do it yourself.  Right.
>
>This is one of the challenges indeed. But the number of 
>corporation that are
>looking into alternate solutions to what MSFT is offering 
>(imposing...) is
>also growing. As usual, they will use a Trojan horse 
>approach "a la internet
>explorer" to impose their version of SIP. It's already 
>built into office
>2003, and they would probably not stop here. If there is 
>a challenge there
>are also people to tackle the challenge :)
>
>--jean-louis
>
>_______________________________________________
>jdev mailing list
>jdev at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev