Hi everyone,
This is a pretty simple question when considering a simple
implementation. However, with the following design, it becomes more
complicated to handle TCP connections efficiently:
Public network || Private network
||
U1 -------> P1 -------> P2
||
||
With the following:
- U1: NATed client
- P1: OpenSIPS NAT box (handles NAT-related features)
- P2: OpenSIPS Proxy/Registrar
P1 handles the NAT using the nat_traversal module. It is working great
using UDP, but TCP is not kept alive by nat_traversal (nat_keepalive()
is just ignored in TCP). I tried to find a workaround to this. I found
three solutions for now:
1) Set the tcp_persistent_flag of the registrar module when NAT is
detected. Unfortunately, P2 does not know the public network, and cannot
therefore keep the TCP connections opened. Dead end, as adding the
registrar module on P1 (without save() ) with the same flag set seems
not to work from my experimentations (which would make sense, according
to the documentation).
2) Another solution is to hard code on P1 the TCP lifetime using the
global parameter (tcp_connection_lifetime) and to set it to the
max_expires parameter of the registrar module (on P2). But I noticed
that even with this parameter set, the TCP connections still went down
after some time. Twinkle is the culprit here, as it closes the TCP
connection after 32 seconds if the TCP persistent option is not checked.
Note that with this option set, any configuration server-side did not
have any effect: the server does not close the connection, even after
its timer runs out. Would it be a valid solution with clients not
messing up with this (meaning: at least not Twinkle)?
3) The last solution would rely on the client hard/soft-phone to keep
the connection opened. However, it would require clients supporting TCP,
and being able to keep the TCP connection opened on their side. I would
rather find a server-based solution, as it would work for any clients
out there.
By requirement, I cannot simplify the design (by putting the registrar
function on P1 for instance), so I have to find another solution. Does
anyone already encounter a similar case? I read a discussion about
adding TCP support/keepalive to the nat_traversal module in an old
discussion (2008,
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00061.html). Is
there anything new there or other stuff to consider/do?
Regards,
Odin
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
