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

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Dan Pascu wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:23, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>> 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
>
> This already works.
>
>>
>>   - to allow custom ping interval per ping session (similar as we do 
>> with timeouts in TM - setting an AVP when enabling the ping, maybe)
>
> As I said, I can see why this could be useful.
>
>>
>>   - 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).
>>
>
> I explicitly did not implement UDP pings, because over 40% of the 
> routers out there will not keep the NAT open if they do not receive 
> something from inside the NAT. As a consequence UDP pings are useless 
> with those devices and unfortunately you cannot know which work and 
> which don't. While UDP pings are cheaper and thus more appealing, in 
> their case it applies the rule that you get what you pay for.

I agree with you - to be honest I'm using only SIP ping ....so should we 
obsolete the UDP ping :) ?
>
>> So three infos: if ping or not, the interval and the type - maybe we 
>> can combine all this into an enable_ping() functions ?
>
> No extra function is needed, just some extra avps.
makes sense - if there are not so many vals to push.


Regards,
Bogdan