[Serusers] OT: sipit19 conclusions

[Greger V. Teigre]

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 at lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>     
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20061106/37e0df0a/attachment.htm>