yes, form strict practical point of view, you are right here. Regards, Bogdan
Dan Pascu wrote: > On Monday 02 March 2009, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > >>>> Anyhow, as best practice , the OPTIONS method is more appropriate >>>> for nat pinging. >>>> >>> I have to disagree. OPTIONS generate 2-3 times more traffic because >>> of the bigger replies. OTOH, it doesn't really matter if we get a 200 >>> OK or a negative reply to such a keep-alive request, does it? All it >>> matters is that the device behind NAT sends something (anything) to >>> keep the NAT open from inside. NOTIFY gets the job done with less >>> traffic, which makes it better. >>> >> Indeed, the OPTIONS may generate more traffic (depends on the >> implementation - kphone sends with SDP also, other not). But when comes >> to interoperability, OPTIONS is more accepted by end devices, rather >> then NOTIFY (where the phone must implement the method and the event). >> > > I don't think the phone needs to implement or for that matter even be > aware of the NOTIFY method. Any device should reply with a "not > implemented" or "method not understood" negative reply to any method it > doesn't support. Any reply will do for the purpose of keepalive, be it > positive or negative. In practice I have not encountered any device that > would not reply to a keep-alive NOTIFY. > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
