[Serusers] OT: sipit19 conclusions

[Nils Ohlmeier]

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 at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers