12 Oct
2006
12 Oct
'06
9:32 a.m.
1. Can somebody point out if anything out of above is
not correct or
if people can add more?
I'm not sure which criteria you have used, but the ones you use do not
differentiate between a full-fledged SIP proxy and a SIP stack. I would
assume that an important criteria would be comparing the code base for
each to find the needed delta for implementing what you are looking for.
SER is NOT a SIP stack, it is a SIP proxy server you can easily extend
with ser.cfg and your own modules.
To the GPL: You can commit your code in GPL, but retain the copyright.
This holds for modules, as well as independent code files in the core
(however, getting your code into the core takes more...). With the
copyright, only you can modify/extend your code for a commercial version
without publishing the commercial modification.
2. Which stack is more actively being used for IMS
enhancements?
I don't know, most IMS enhancements are below the radar. If you are
looking for a stack, reSIPprocate is known as the most mature stack used
in many commercial projects. If you are looking for a server, I'm sure
SER cannot be beaten on the modular extendability and especially the
configuration language in ser.cfg.
Tekelec has a commercial IMS server with SIP core as a basis, and at
least one other person on the list has very recently started to look at
CSCF module development.
3. Are there any plans for near future SER release
with IMS support
(CSCF mainly)?
Only 4-5 days ago, there was a thread where Dragos documented the work
done at FOKUS and which modules/functionality that FOKUS will soon make
available (GPL, I think).
g-)
Gaurav Kansal wrote:
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.
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
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
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
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. Are there any plans for near future SER release with IMS support
(CSCF mainly)?
Regards,
Gaurav Kansal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers