Reviews:
 ·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Providers that support [TCP] and multiple [SIP] regisrations Not everyone has an analogue phone connected to an ATA. Battery life is important. SIP/UDP doesn't cut it.
Which providers of SIP accounts support TCP and which don't?
Let me start with a list.
• CallCentric. No TCP support, no mention of SIP/TCP on the website, completely escapes their FAQ!
• OnSIP. No TCP support. They clearly show to have no clue about why would anyone need SIP/TCP at »www.onsip.com/blog/2008/12/04/si···p-vs-tcp. They also further promote for people shooting themselves in the foot here: »www.onsip.com/blog/2010/07/07/th···ications. Of course, as with any vendor, they blame the other parties for their lack of "cooperation" and too-big-and-too-old-to-change attitude, completely ignoring the obvious, and essentially advising their clients to go from 10 days standby on their iPhone, to a mere 1 day, just for the sake of saving OnSIP on their security, software and server costs. Lame. Just as their attempts to lure in Google Voice users to port their numbers over to OnSIP, without ever mentioning that they'll loose SMS support.
• CallWithUs. Supports TCP. See »www.callwithus.com/faq.
• PBXes.org. Supports TCP. They also do have a clue on why would people need it. »code.google.com/p/sipdroid/wiki/···echnique A good read, also look up the research article by Nokia that they reference, "TCP Wake-Up: Reducing Keep-Alive Traffic in Mobile IPv4 and IPsec NAT Traversal", »research.nokia.com/files/tr/NRC-···-002.pdf.
etc.
Also, whilst at it, it'll be useful to know which providers let you use the same SIP username/password to register more than one device to receive calls at the same time, and, perhaps, whether they let you create several SIP accounts within one web account.
• CallCentric: only one (most recent) registration per SIP account, only one SIP account per web-account.
• OnSIP: multiple concurrent registrations per each SIP account, multiple free SIP accounts (with aliases) per web-account.
• CallWithUs: multiple concurrent registrations per each SIP account; multiple SIP accounts per web-account, but no aliases.
etc.
If you provide a link to another thread/website/etc, please provide a short and succinct summary.
Also, it is my understanding that when selecting SIP/TCP in a softphone, TCP is only used for SIP registrations, and the actual voice traffic is always carried over UDP; is that correct, or would it actually end up being proxied over TCP? (I certainly don't want my voice traffic carried over TCP.) |
|
sokhapkinPremium
join:2003-05-08
Cape Coral, FL | You're correct, voice traffic always runs over UDP.
--
»www.callwithus.com |
|
| reply to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:.....completely ignoring the obvious, and essentially advising their clients to go from 10 days standby on their iPhone, to a mere 1 day....
....without ever mentioning that they'll loose SMS support....
Ignoring the rest, what iPhone do you have that gets 10 days on standby? I'd feel lucky to get maybe 2 days on standby if I literally didn't even touch the phone, and that would be with a brand new iPhone charged to 100%
Finally, what's the root cause of almost everyone on the internet not understanding the difference between "lose" and "loose"? There's a significant difference between these two words... |
|
toro
join:2006-01-27
Scarborough, ON | reply to ConstantineM
This is almost like asking which car manufacturers have Wifi internet available in the car and, if possible, for free. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| SIP/TCP car comparison: MPG estimates said by toro:This is almost like asking which car manufacturers have Wifi internet available in the car and, if possible, for free. I think it's more like asking for MPG estimates; and for such estimates to be accurate. CallCentric provides no estimates, whilst OnSIP purposefully provides inaccurate and unattainable estimates (heard of the recent Kia's "MPG Gate"?), in order to generate sales for the wrong products, namely, SIP/UDP accounts and also SIP software like Bria by CounterPath with no generic APNS support (CounterPath, supposedly, do have APNS available for sale to individual vendors that want a branded softphone, yet somehow OnSIP is too cheap to purchase that one, either). I purchased Bria for iPhone, and was very disappointed by a one-day battery life; Groundwire by Acrobits is the only SIP app I can recommend on iOS, since it's the only one (last I checked) that supports APNS and has zero effects on battery life (thanks to APNS).
Besides, your response sounds like TCP is so expensive to support that no provider could possibly provide SIP/TCP for free; yet how come CallWithUs.com and PBXes.org have no problem doing exactly just so?
If UDP is so cool and dandy, and noone needs TCP anyways, it's not like they'll suddenly have all those ATA and hardware phones coming in with TCP, is it? An APNS-style solution is superior to SIP/TCP, BTW, and even guys from Sipdroid would agree (they do mention they'd like to piggyback on another TCP connection, instead of having their own), yet the all-knowing OnSIP purposefully discredits APNS due to their own agenda regarding their own costs (and potentially a hidden interest in CounterPath). OnSIP is doing a disservice to the mobile SIP community through misleading and one-sided blog entries like the one bashing APNS. |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ | reply to ConstantineM
Re: Providers that support [TCP] and multiple [SIP] regisrations "If you provide a link to another thread/website/etc, please provide a short and succinct summary. "
Whiny crybaby then want me to do your work for you.  |
|
toro
join:2006-01-27
Scarborough, ON Reviews:
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to ConstantineM
To me it's more like asking for a feature that not too many customers care about so it's not worth the expense to implement it. So the only ones that have it are the more expensive ones who cater to business users.
Probably searching for VoIP providers that support Microsoft Lync or Exchange 2010 would help as those are some of the VoIP servers that insist on using SIP over TCP.
--
Providers: voip.ms, freephoneline, smartcall.ro through asterisk. Hardware: Vonage VDV21, Moto VT2x42, Linksys SPA series, Grandstream HT series, Panasonic KX-TGP5x0
»www.voipfan.net |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ | reply to ConstantineM
When IPV6 is fully in place this may be a mute discussion. For most purposes for phone calls udp is better unless say a dedeicated bandwidth and high level of quality needs like tv or radio. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to ThirtySeven
iPhone 4 is rated for 300 hours standby (12.5 days) said by ThirtySeven :said by ConstantineM:.....completely ignoring the obvious, and essentially advising their clients to go from 10 days standby on their iPhone, to a mere 1 day....
Ignoring the rest, what iPhone do you have that gets 10 days on standby? I'd feel lucky to get maybe 2 days on standby if I literally didn't even touch the phone, and that would be with a brand new iPhone charged to 100% The iPhone 4 is rated for 300 hours of standby, that's 12.5 days. I would be surprised if even with an old device you couldn't get close to 10 days with Groundwire by Acrobits that piggybacks on APNS (and also with a Google Voice app from Google, too, BTW), provided you only receive, say, one one-minute call through Groundwire, and, say, one SMS message through Google Voice, and basically don't use the phone at all otherwise (not even checking the time). With Bria by CounterPath that has no APNS, I'd be surprised if the same phone and same test setup would last you more than 2 or 3 days.
Of course, if you do browsing, video watching etc, that all consumes a lot of battery life, and makes any benefits from APNS rather negligible. Running apps in the background likewise uses lots of battery. Groundwire and Google Voice don't run in the background on your device, they have special daemons that run on Acrobits and Google servers in the cloud, and contact APNS servers when you receive a message, thus not consuming any extra battery life on your phone that wouldn't already have to be consumed for regular Apple services. Also, if you left your phone out in the freezing cold in the car, that might also explain why you might have a diminished or deteriorated battery life.
When I was using an iPhone 4, I would usually charge it once or twice a week, because I did use it for calling etc. But I didn't run any IM apps other than Google Voice (which has excellent APNS support); lots of IM apps are broken, and will eat your battery life in a snap; it's party Apple's fault for giving in to the market, and permitting apps to run in the background with little supervision. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to nonymous
Re: Providers that support [TCP] and multiple [SIP] regisrations said by nonymous:When IPV6 is fully in place this may be a mute discussion. For most purposes for phone calls udp is better unless say a dedeicated bandwidth and high level of quality needs like tv or radio.
Noone disputes that UDP is better for actual voice traffic; see my final sentence in the OP and the first reply confirming that indeed when you select TCP in the softphone, voice traffic still goes over UDP (as it should).
The issue here is SIP registrations, which should be done through TCP when NAT and battery life are involved.
Do any SIP providers support IPv6? |
|
|
|
SCADAGeo
join:2012-11-08
N California
kudos:1 | reply to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:Not everyone has an analogue phone connected to an ATA. Battery life is important. SIP/UDP doesn't cut it.
said by ConstantineM:Of course, as with any vendor, they blame the other parties for their lack of "cooperation" and too-big-and-too-old-to-change attitude, completely ignoring the obvious, and essentially advising their clients to go from 10 days standby on their iPhone, to a mere 1 day, just for the sake of saving OnSIP on their security,
Why wait for a provider based solution when you can run your own Asterisk server? 
It will no longer matter if the VoIP provider(s) supports SIP TCP based registrations because Asterisk performs the registration (trunking).
Your softphone(s) registers with your Asterisk server via SIP TCP so you have increased standby time.
Asterisk also offers solutions to other issues that have been mentioned in the past. 
You can create as many Asterisk accounts (extensions) for as many devices as you wish. The effect is multiple extensions using the same VoIP provider account (trunk).
You can ring as many phones (registered extensions) as you wish via ring groups.
You can modify the incoming CID. If a CID is missing the '+', you can insert it. You can insert a country code, too.
You can route inbound calls based upon DID number. If you currently pay the monthly 911 cost recovery fee of $1.50 on a CallCentric account, you can add multiple free NY DIDs at no additional cost (CallCentric's 911 cost recovery fee is account based).
Concerned about not being able to receive a call in case of another rare CallCentric outage? Set up Asterisk with a Google Voice trunk, and have your Google Voice number connect directly to your Asterisk server, forwarded to your IPKall number, and forwarded to your CallCentric NY DID.
You can SIP forward your IPKall number directly to your Asterisk server (I used to forward via IAX2, but IPKall dropped IAX2 support on Nov 20, 2012). Please note that IPKall does not allow registrations on their server.
I have a Skype trunk, too.
Did I mention Asterisk SMS support?
Have you ever forgotten to use one of your free numbers/services within the allotted time frame and the number/service is reclaimed and issued to someone else? You can set up Asterisk with reminders (cron based call files) that automatically call/use the free number/service.
Another feature is the hotel style wake up call feature.
If energy consumption is an issue, there are embedded versions of Asterisk that run on wireless routers, and a version that runs on the Raspberry Pi.
The best thing about Asterisk - it is open source software. You can modify the source code and make it work any way you want.  |
|
 crazyk4952Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1
 ·Charter
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·voip.ms
| said by SCADAGeo:If energy consumption is an issue, there are embedded versions of Asterisk that run on wireless routers, and a version that runs on the Raspberry Pi.
I have been running Incredible PBX on my Pi for the last month or so. It works surprisingly well! (Although the UI is a little bit slow.) I am running it on the 256MB version of the Pi, so it will probably work even better on the 512MB version. Not bad for $35 and ~3 watts of power! |
|
| reply to ConstantineM
You're asking for proprietary apple dreck to be included in a SIP UA? And for ITSP providers to support APNS? Good luck with that! |
|
gweidenh
join:2002-05-18
Houston, TX
kudos:1 | reply to ConstantineM
Flowroute.com supports TCP
root:~# host -t NAPTR flowroute.com
flowroute.com has NAPTR record 100 10 "s" "SIP+D2U" "" _sip._udp.flowroute.com.
flowroute.com has NAPTR record 102 20 "s" "SIP+D2T" "" _sip._tcp.flowroute.com.
root:~# host -t SRV _sip._tcp.flowroute.com
_sip._tcp.flowroute.com has SRV record 10 10 5060 sip-nv1.flowroute.com.
_sip._tcp.flowroute.com has SRV record 20 10 5060 sip-ca1.flowroute.com.
They also support multiple registrations. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to SCADAGeo
To SIP, or not to SIP, that is the question. As a society, we have to think about the common finite resources and benefits. Running your own Asterisk may be a great idea for a small to medium sized office, but it seems pretty wasteful for just one person (besides, we're already out of IPv4 space).
I may indeed end up investigating methods to run my own SIP server or proxy of some sort, but this doesn't solve the problem that some companies, like OnSIP, purposefully discredit the state-of-the-art technologies like APNS, which are, in fact, the defacto gold standard for battery-optimised push notifications, and Bria by CounterPath with SIP/UDP from OnSIP doesn't come even close.
Going a bit offtopic from the original thread title, I'd really like to have some answers of why OnSIP thinks that the whole NAT44 and 3GPP industry, together with Apple, should change just for the sake of letting stubborn companies like OnSIP to not have to invest a cent into actually doing some innovation in the mobile space, and for the sake of letting OnSIP to basically just run the solutions created by others decades ago. |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ | Sure we may be nearly out of IPV4 why the switch among other good things to IPV6. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:Going a bit offtopic from the original thread title, I'd really like to have some answers of why OnSIP thinks that the whole NAT44 and 3GPP industry, together with Apple, should change just for the sake of letting stubborn companies like OnSIP to not have to invest a cent into actually doing some innovation in the mobile space, and for the sake of letting OnSIP to basically just run the solutions created by others decades ago.
Why should OnSip (Junction Networks) change just for the sake of pleasing you?
Why should OnSip make major changes that only a handful of customers would want?
Why should OnSip subsidize proprietary systems from Apple?
Why should OnSip have to innovate into the mobile space if they choose not to?
Why should you get to run the world?
-------------------------------------
Is there ANY VoIP provider in the USA or Canada that you are content with?
I truly pity you, to go through life so unhappy with everything. |
|
SCADAGeo
join:2012-11-08
N California
kudos:1 | reply to crazyk4952
Re: Providers that support [TCP] and multiple [SIP] regisrations said by crazyk4952:Not bad for $35 and ~3 watts of power!
That's awesome! |
|
rblizz
join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX Reviews:
·Callcentric
·Charter
| reply to ConstantineM
Re: To SIP, or not to SIP, that is the question. said by ConstantineM:As a society, we have to think about the common finite resources and benefits. Running your own Asterisk may be a great idea for a small to medium sized office, but it seems pretty wasteful for just one person (besides, we're already out of IPv4 space). Huh? Incredible PBX for Raspberry Pi (among other low power alternatives using Asterisk) runs on almost no power and uses the IPv4 address that is already coming into your house.
Next objection. |
|
