[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Freedombox-discuss] towards a business plan

Hash: SHA1

On 03/07/2011 04:21 AM, Paul Gardner-Stephen wrote:
> Hello,
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
> <marc at petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
> .. snip ...
>>> Yes, SIP is very good in many ways, but at ServalProject.org at least,
>>> we are looking to create a simple alternative protocol (open of
>>> course) which will tolerate latency and excessive packet loss much
>>> better than SIP does,
>> I guess you mean RTP, not SIP here.
> Excuse my sloppy lumping of RTP and SIP together; my concern is with
> them jointly and severally.
> Neither is good in bad packet loss, which is reasonable, as they were
> not designed with it in mind.

For SIP, packet loss is not that critical - it's just signaling and that would
just delay call establishment and stuff like that.  That does not really make
for a bad user experience.

RTP on the other hand works very well with packet loss and latency - when RTCP
is also correctly implemented, which is rarely the case in my experience.  In my
opinion, RTP is one of the IETF protocol that stick the most to the original
premise of the Internet, the end to end argument - argument which is also the
foundation of the Freedom Box, if I am not confused.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc at petit-huguenin.org
Professional email: petithug at acm.org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: