> -----Original Message----- > From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Actually TCP keep-alive is even simpler, even though, alas, just > TCP-specific. > There are some rumours though that some NATs drop TCP keep-alives, even > though I have not witnessed that yet.
Obviously I'm not a client guy, but I've been told not all clients have the ability to set their sockets to do that, depending on the OS. > I think that's a bit network-centric viewpoint. I'm comfortable with > leaving the NAT-traversal responsibility on the client. (which kind of > gets to the root of the problem, which is NATs are client-server > centric). Then some things (such as server's decision how to keep the > connections alive) don't have to concern us. Ironically I'm also trying to let the client do it - by having it tell the proxy "I'm smart enough to keep this connection alive by myself, if you're smart enough to use these mechanisms". -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
