Hello
I am in the process of evaluating a SIP stack for IMS enhancements (for CSCF). I compared SIPx, SER and reciprocate stacks for CSCF development. Resiprocate: Pros: 1. Slightly less distributed architecture than SIPx 2. Can run as registrar/proxy/redirect server 3. TLS support for Security 4. Support for NAT 5. Web based management interface 6. IPv6 support 7. Maximum standards compliance Other notes: 1. Developers are mostly RFC authors also, so implementation is full and true reference implementation 2. SIP foundry says that resiprocate is most advanced and interoperable open source SIP stack 3. Many IMS headers are supported in latest release 1.0 SIPx: Pros: 1. Complete SIP based IP-PBX solution 2. Distributed architecture 3. Can run as registrar/proxy/redirect server 4. TLS support for Security 5. Support for NAT 6. Web based management interface Cons: 1. Missing IPv6 support 2. Large footprint SER: Pros: 1. Can run as registrar/proxy/redirect server 2. TLS support for Security 3. Support for NAT 4. Web based management interface 5. IPv6 support Cons: 1. GPL license I have following queries: 1. Can somebody point out if anything out of above is not correct or if people can add more? 2. Which stack is more actively being used for IMS enhancements? 3. Which stack is better suited for IMS compliance as per 3GPP standards? Regards, Gaurav Kansal _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
