Jiri Kuthan wrote: > The trouble with TCP/keepalive is twofold. One is, as Hadriel mentions, > there are OSs that can't deal with it. [...] > The other problem is very similar: there are NATs that ignore TCP > keep-alives to extend bindings.
There is one more problem in TCP keep-alives: they may cause an otherwise perfect connection between two hosts to be disrupted if some intermediary router connecting the two hosts hiccups temporarily. This is discussed to good length (including the pros and cons of TCP keepalive) in Chapter 23 of [1]. The reference is old enough (1994) that it does not contain discussion of NATs, but the intermediary issue is valid and even mentioned in the more recent book by Stevens, Fenner, and Rudoff [2] (see discussion on pg. 201). [1] W. Richard Stevens, "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols," Addison-Wesley, 1994. [2] W. Richard Stevens, Bill Fenner, and Andrew Rudoff, "Unix Network Programming: The Sockets Networking API," Addison- Wesley, 2004. Ciao. - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],bell-labs.com,acm.org} WWW: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs _______________________________________________ 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
