SIPit 21 was hosted by the BII Group and the Beijing University of
Posts and Telecommunications, November 5-9 in Beijing, China.
The event was a little smaller than the most recent SIPits:
There were 94 attendees from 38 companies visiting from 15 countries.
There were 44 teams and around 70 distinct implementations.
The majority of the testing I saw was focusing on advanced scenarios
rather than basic registration and call setup.
As with SIPit 20, the most common area of interoperability problems
centered around offer/answer, particularly when attempting to
negotiate alternate versions of streams or to explicitly state
parameters to be used with a given stream.
Forty of the attending teams completed the survey - from those answers:
The roles represented (some implementations act in more than one role):
21 endpoints
10 proxy/registrars
3 standalone registrars
5 event servers
4 gateways
6 automaton UAs (voicemail, conference, appserver, etc)
8 b2bua/sbcs
4 UAs with signaling, but without media
1 test/monitoring tool
Implementations using each transport for SIP messages:
UDP 100%
TCP 82%
TLS 49% (server auth only)
TLS 6% (mutual auth)
SCTP 3%
DTLS 0%
36% of the implementations supported SIP over IPv6 (up from 25% at
SIPit20)
18% supported SIP over IPSec
For DNS we had support for:
Full RFC3263 : 61%
SRV only : 21%
A records only : 9%
no DNS support : 9%
Support for various items:
61% rport
15% sigcomp
22% enum
21% sending multiplexing STUN and SIP
28% receiving multiplexed STUN and SIP
22% RFC4320 fixes
12% identity
70% session-timer
There was one implementation of parts of the session-policy framework.
There was one implementation of the sip-consent framework.
There were two implementations of parts of the sip-config framework
(I do not know yet if they worked together).
There were three implementations of outbound and four of GRUU.
There were two implementations of MSRP present.
The endpoints implemented these methods:
100% INVITE, CANCEL, ACK, BYE
87% REGISTER
87% OPTIONS
87% NOTIFY <- still a lot of unsolicted NOTIFYs
87% REFER
77% SUBSCRIBE
77% INFO
70% UPDATE
67% PRACK
47% MESSAGE
33% PUBLISH
Support for various extensions in the endpoints:
43% RFC3323 privacy
41% RFC3327 path
13% RFC3840 pref
13% RFC3841 caller-prefs
59% RFC3891 replaces
20% RFC4488 norefersub
0% RFC4538 target-dialog <- There were several folks starting
to talk about supporting this
Support for various things in the endpoints:
10% ICE (but there was no interoperability - see below)
0% ICE-TCP
13% STUNbis
17% TURN (again, there was no interoperability)
75% symmetric RTP
25% SRTP
0% RTP over DTLS
This is how the endpoints answered how they supported multipart/mime:
7% I break if someone sends me multipart/mime
30% I pretend multipart mime doesn't exist if someone sends it to me
20% I ignore multipart/mime, but will proxy it or hand it to my
application if it shows up
17% I try to do something useful with multipart/mime I receive, but I
never send it
3% I ignore multipart/mime I receive, but I try to send it to do
something useful
20% I try to do something useful with multipart/mime I send and receive
There were 4 endpoints that would send media over TCP - none of them
supported RFC4145 comedia.
One of those supported media over TLS.
Implementation is all over the map for fork-loop-fix. However, only 3
of the proxy/b2buas present were still vulnerable to the simple form
of the attack described in the draft.
There were no implementations present with support for location-
conveyance or the geopriv common-policy framework.
There was one implementation present with support for the RFC4967
dial-string parameter, and one with support for the ecrit service-urn.
Of the SIP-Events implementations, the following packages were
supported:
62% refer
48% message-summary
38% presence
29% dialog
19% reg
19% conf
There was one implementation of each of the following packages:
ua-profile
certificate/credentials
vx-rtcpxp (sipping-rtcp-summary)
There was only one implementation of event-lists present.
Only 20% of the SIP-Events implementations supported winfo.
We had a multiparty sesssion for a full morning focusing on NAT
traversal. Basic use of STUN with SIP is hightly interoperable.
No two implementations of TURN could even start trying to talk to
each other (each having implemented to different points in the recent
torrent of changes). I don't think we'll get much implementation
feedback until the spec stops making big changes so frequently. No
two implementations of ICE worked together. The closest was between
two implementations that have worked in the past, but failed during
this session when the connectivity checks arrived before the SDP.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
