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

[Thomas Gelf]

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> I agree with you - to be honest I'm using only SIP ping ....so should we 
> obsolete the UDP ping :) ?

I have no concerns regarding this. IMO the additional load does not
really hurt small systems - and large systems should already be designed
to scale out ;-) Seriously: the only reason for "pings" is keeping "UDP
connections" (even if there is no such thing) alive. Most systems that
require such things need traffic from "inside" - so UDP ping is mostly
pretty useless, trash it!

>> No extra function is needed, just some extra avps.
> makes sense - if there are not so many vals to push.

In my initial feature request I mentioned keepalive_interval_avp and
keepalive_method_avp - while the naming could be subject to discussions
those should be the only two required AVPs to satisfy the proposed
enhancements.

It seems that we agree on the interval-part - this would allow to
use a not-so-frequent default interval (saving ressources) and grant
the option to make it more "aggressive" for users having issues with
the default setting.

As you asked for real-world example for the "per-user-ping-type"
feature request: while preparing our new VoIP platform I've switched
to nat_traversal and configured NOTIFY, as it seemed to be the more
elegant variant.

This went well, unless I've met problems with some UACs (tested AVM,
Snom, Grandsteam - don't remember which one had the problem) behind
an enterprise firewall (Nokia Checkpoint or Juniper Netscreen, both
cluster installations - don't remember even here which one it has
been). There have no longer been no replies to my NOTIFY, I switched
to OPTIONS and it worked.

I must confess that I didn't try to find out who caused the problem
(ALG or UAC) - I've just seen issues with NOTIFY and opted for the
second option (OPTIONS). Nonetheless I would welcome the possibility
to switch back to NOTIFY and use OPTIONS just where I encounter
problems.

Best regards,
Thomas Gelf