I would like to share some thoughts/questions regarding nat_keepalive() from the nat_traversal module. First thing I'm wondering whether I should send keepalives only to clients with NAT issues (as reported by client_nat_test) or to all of them (even clients without obvious NAT issues).
The former would save ressources, the latter would make sure that clients using STUN behind a non-symmetric NAT router would remain reacheable even if their own keepalive mechanism is not configured or implemented correctly. What I'm evaluationg to do is running nat_keepalive for each REGISTER and for each initial INVITE request, regardless of how they present themselves - but respecting a setting in usr_preferences, allowing me to switch keep_alives off per user. I would also put such a switch in their web-backend. Next thing I was reflecting about is the keepalive_interval. I would like to set something like 57 seconds, as I've seen routers/firewalls closing ports after 60 seconds. Sure, in case one single keepalive is lost the port is lost - but hey, who cares ;-p I'm fine with 57 seconds as a pragmatic approach, but I'm really interested in your opinions! Best regards, Thomas Gelf _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
