3 ms·

Yes, FTP has an atrociously bad design. The difference is that SIP wasn't made in the early 80s, so what's their excuse? VPNs typically do OK, except IPSec beca

Yes, FTP has an atrociously bad design. The difference is that SIP wasn't made in the early 80s, so what's their excuse? VPNs typically do OK, except IPSec because the IETF didn't want to admit that NAT existed (though I believe they cleaned that up with an add-on and things are mostly fine now.) As an end-user, hopefully your implementors have solved most problems for ya. As an implementor, SIP is a curse. (HTTP, which SIP drew its nutty parsing rules from, recently ditched the entire format in preference of a binary format. Not related to the IP-embedding-galore that SIP added, but still interesting to note.) SIP does not "work fine" in an IPv4 only environment, as any NAT user will attest to. It can, by ignoring the RFC and hoping that no middleware gets involved. (Middleware only gets involved because the RFC makes it a juicy target.)

nadams 11y ago
> VPNs typically do OK Assuming the network administrator has configured his router for VPN pass through [1]. > SIP does not "work fine" in an IPv4 only environment, as any NAT user will attest to. Seems to work fine for me. The built in SIP client for Android works great in IPv4 both NAT and non-NAT. However, it seems to have some issues with IPv6 (not surprised due to the lack of feedback on the Android bug tracker...). Zoiper on the other hand will work through pretty much anything you throw at it. I'm not saying SIP is perfect - but my experiences with SIP have been generally positive with Asterisk. Now I'm also in control of Asterisk and can tweak the configuration - I'm sure a lot of canned SIP systems are completely broken. [1] http://www.tp-link.us/FAQ-558.html http://www.tp-link.us/FAQ-558.html