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