6 Nov
2006
6 Nov
'06
10:50 a.m.
Thanks for pointing that out, Nils. I interpreted "client
implementations" to be UAs only, not RFC-UAC...
g-)
Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
Hi Greger,
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 11:20, Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Thanks, Klaus :-)
Here's a snippet that many may be interested in:
When asked about STUN support, the client implementations replied:
6% I implement all the client requirements of
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis
6% I implement some, but not all, of the client requirements of
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3498bis
13% I implement all of the client requirements of RFC3489
7% I implement some, but not all, of the client requirements of RFC3489
59% I do not implement STUN as a client
9% Other
please consider that it makes not too much sense for gateways, proxys etc. to
implement a STUN client. As a little bit more then 50% (I dont recall the
exact number) were only UAs, I guess the majority of the 59% are the non-UAs.
As usual their are several ways to read statistics ;-)
Nils
There are still a large number of endpoints (25%)
that do not use
symmetric RTP.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi!
I found this link on the sip mailing list.
http://www.sipit.net/report19.txt
regards
klaus
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers