[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Dan,

Dan Pascu wrote:
>
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 21:07, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>> Dan, what about this? this will accelerate the migration from 
>> nathelper to nat_tranversal module, what do you say?
>>
>
> I can see the benefit of having the keepalive interval customizable 
> per user, but I'm not sure what's the advantage of having the 
> keepalive method customizable per user. In my experience all devices 
> I've encountered respond to either OPTIONS or NOTIFY and in the end it 
> doesn't really matter if they give a positive or negative reply for 
> that matter. All it matters that they give a reply back. I would be 
> curious to hear how the keepalive method per user can help and in what 
> cases. If one can imagine a use case for custom keepalive methods, I 
> would rather see that on a per device basis not per SIP account basis.
>
> Anyway, I'm open to patch submissions. But first let's see if these 
> additions really serve real use cases that are not covered by the 
> existing design, or just provide suboptimal solutions that could be 
> achieved with the existing code. I'd like to hear some arguments and 
> examples of real use cases for them. I'm interested to avoid getting 
> in the creeping featurism zone.

 From my personal opinion , what makes sense here is:
    - to be able to enable/disable pinging from script (per each 
REGISTER  or dialog) - I guess the module already does this
    - to allow custom ping interval per ping session (similar as we do 
with timeouts in TM - setting an AVP when enabling the ping, maybe)
    - to allow selection of ping type (UDP versus SIP) by simply setting 
a flag (like we do now in nathelper - default is UDP ping and if you set 
an extra flag, you get SIP  ping).

So three infos: if ping or not, the interval and the type - maybe we can 
combine all this into an enable_ping() functions ?

All these options will give you the possibility to do all the crazy 
combinations from script. At least I think so :)

Regards,
Bogdan

>
>> As time as it is not technical nightmare (from implementation point 
>> of view), this feature make sense to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bogdan
>>
>> Thomas Gelf wrote:
>>> I would also like to take occasion to propose a new feature: adding a
>>> parameter named "keepalive_interval_avp", allowing to set individual
>>> keepalive intervals for customers with special needs.
>>>
>>> Also "keepalive_method_avp" would be a useful addition. Both changes
>>> would probably require modifications to keepalive_state_file and
>>> corresponding internal structures, but I think this could be solved
>>> in a backward-compatible manner.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Thomas Gelf
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Dan
>
>
>
>