[asterisk-dev] One sip stack to rule them all....

[Bruce Ferrell]

On 10/08/2017 04:47 PM, James Finstrom wrote:
> A large percentage of "PJSIP" Sucks comes down to comfort.  I talked to several users at astricon and the summary is:
> 
> Every provider that actually provides documentation only gives a chan_sip block
> We don't understand how to configure it.
> My customers need ccss.
> 
> So one issue with feature parody and mostly people who simply don't want to configure it.
> 
> The process of eventual removal when the ball gets rolling to do so is several releases away.
> PJSIP is already in use on Digium's commercial platform which shows their level of confidence in the stack.
> 
> This ultimately comes down to the chicken vs the egg.
> Once major adoption occurs PJSIP will become a rock. PJSIP will become a rock when major adoption occurs.
> 
> Looking at the tracker chan_sip has 233 open bugs, Chan_pjsip 38.
> So if our metric is "bugs" then there is a clear winner


> Remember the golden rule of software. No ticket, no bug.
>

EASY!!! No one uses it, no tickets... no bugs!  It wins!

Wait... WHAT?!

I most definitely do NOT want what you're smoking!



> Side note remember if it is removed in say Asterisk 19 (made up scenario) You don't have to use 19. All the previous releases will still have it.

...And of course none of the features or bugs fixes

This is the same stuff Novell smoked.

> 
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Seán C. McCord <ulexus at gmail.com <mailto:ulexus at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I obviously failed to sufficiently emphasize the point.  Whether you like it or not, whether you think pjsip is ready or not, whether it is better or not, chan_sip is
>     effectively at a dead end.    Unless some miraculously talented and motivated person emerges to maintain chan_sip (which is somewhat less likely than my dead grandmother taking
>     up x86 assembly), there is no future for it.  The discussion is not about that.  There is no discussion about that.  This is not about chan_sip vs chan_pjsip.  It is pointless
>     to wax about the perceived solidity of chan_sip.  It is not solid.  It is not maintainable.  It is already years behind.  People have managed to patch it into a simulacrum of
>     stability under certain use cases (though I will admit that those use cases are wide and, in a self-fulfilling manner, perhaps do represent the majority of present use cases of
>     active users of chan_sip), but this will not and has not continued.
> 
>     Factual deprecation itself is not even under discussion.  chan_sip _is_ deprecated, whether that is officially acknowledged or not.
> 
>     Rather, this discussion is about making sure lurkers who are still using chan_sip but have not reported specific problems or feature gaps have their say, are aware that
>     chan_sip is NOT the recommended stack, and understand that chan_sip will (again, whether anyone likes it or not) progressively worsen as time progresses.
> 
> 
>     On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 3:33 PM Bryant Zimmerman <BryantZ at zktech.com <mailto:BryantZ at zktech.com>> wrote:
> 
>         I would agree with this. We have tried to deploy pjsip several times over the last year with limited success.
>         We have had nothing but issues with database real-time deployments. Tables not working from one 13.x release to another.
>         Table builders sorcery failing out.
>         Issues when there are multiple transports on varying networks were udp is not routed correctly through the asterisk servers. No matter the settings.
>         Connectivity issues with varying success by carrier.
>         Unexplained audio quality issues that don't occur on the same spec running chan_sip
>         We want to move to pjsip but the functionality and stability have only proven out for limited applications.
>         Bryant
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From*: "Daniel Journo" <dan at keshercommunications.com <mailto:dan at keshercommunications.com>>
>         *Sent*: Sunday, October 8, 2017 3:12 PM
>         *To*: "Asterisk Developers Mailing List" <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com <mailto:asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>>
>         *Subject*: Re: [asterisk-dev] One sip stack to rule them all....
> 
>         > What is _also_ needed, however, is more use of PJSIP and reports of  specific problems, and specific deficits of PJSIP so that the fear can be eased before, at some point many years from now, chan_sip just doesn't work any more.
> 
>         There are a number of specific issues on issue tracker which still need addressing before more people will take it on properly. Some issues probably require a semi-major
>         rethink and probably won’t be dealt with for months.
>         Making chan_sip depreciated would leave Asterisk with no production grade sip stack that is officially being maintained.
> 
>         --
>         _____________________________________________________________________
>         -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> 
>         asterisk-dev mailing list
>         To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>         http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev <http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
> 
>     -- 
>     Seán C McCord
>     CyCore Systems, Inc
>     +1 888 240 0308 <tel:(888)%20240-0308>
>     PGP/GPG: http://cycoresys.com/scm.asc
> 
>     --
>     _____________________________________________________________________
>     -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> 
>     asterisk-dev mailing list
>     To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>     http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev <http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> James
> 
>