Comments on: Why is VoIP/SIP so hard? http://blog.incase.de/index.php/2006/11/19/why-is-voipsip-so-hard/ Sven's occasional log Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:58:31 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mika Rastas http://blog.incase.de/index.php/2006/11/19/why-is-voipsip-so-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Mika Rastas Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:52:17 +0000 http://blog.incase.de/index.php/2006/11/19/why-is-voipsip-so-hard/#comment-19 I played a little bit with Ekiga a while ago. It seemed to be a working solution, windows port was then beta and I think still is. I played a little bit with Ekiga a while ago. It seemed to be a working solution, windows port was then beta and I think still is.

]]> By: Adrrian Bridgett http://blog.incase.de/index.php/2006/11/19/why-is-voipsip-so-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Adrrian Bridgett Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:36:19 +0000 http://blog.incase.de/index.php/2006/11/19/why-is-voipsip-so-hard/#comment-18 I use twinkle and I've pretty happy with it. The main problem is just SIP itself - it doesn't work out of the box with NAT traversal. Add to that the whole host of settings available (particularly on something like Xlite) and you can see the problem. I hope they add SIMPLE (instant messaging and presence) to twinkle - then we would have an open standard for VOIP/IM/P. It would then be interesting to see how XMPP and SIP compete. I use twinkle and I’ve pretty happy with it. The main problem is just SIP itself – it doesn’t work out of the box with NAT traversal. Add to that the whole host of settings available (particularly on something like Xlite) and you can see the problem.

I hope they add SIMPLE (instant messaging and presence) to twinkle – then we would have an open standard for VOIP/IM/P. It would then be interesting to see how XMPP and SIP compete.

]]>