Dean Willis wrote: > > On May 8, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Jiri Kuthan wrote: > >> Juha Heinanen wrote: >>> Christer Holmberg writes: >>> >>>> I agree with Hadriel. The idea is to let the client do it, so that >>>> the proxy doesn't need to handle it, e.g. by providing short >>>> registration refresh timers etc in order to make sure the NAT >>>> bindings stay open. >>> >>> christer, >>> >>> could you then, please, restrict the scope of your draft to udp >>> connected UAs, because if they are tcp connected, clients can keep >>> their nat binding open by simply sending double CRLFs. if they get back >>> single CRLF, then fine, but if they don't, it is fine too. >> >> True, I didn't realize that, with TCP we don't even need the reverse >> CRLF. > > Well, without the reverse CRLF, you may not notice for 20 minutes that > your connection is down. The TCP stack will take a while to timeout from > SYN.
Well, that's compelling enough indeed to have CRLF back and forth. -jiri > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ 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
