2009/3/23 Alexandr Dubovikov shurik@start4.info:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/4/1 Alexandr Dubovikov shurik@start4.info:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:21:20PM +0100, Andreas Heise wrote:
Hello Iñaki,
Hi Inaki,
Hi all,
you should ask Alexandr he has introdused this feature with rev5452, but I'm not sure if he is on the lists all the time, so I'll forward your question to him...
sorry, I am currently offline and couldn't answer directly to the list.
anyway. I agreed, 180 seconds it's too big ping interval, but it couldn't be also less 32 seconds.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt
17.2.2 Non-INVITE Server Transaction
T1 = 500 ms.
Timer J 64*T1 for UDP Section 17.2.2 Wait time for 0s for TCP/SCTP non-INVITE request
so, the timer for "completed" is 32 seconds and couldn't be less.
of course, you can use less value, but on own risk :-) RFC 3261 are not recommendet it :)
Thanks for pointing it out. However, if a gw takes so long time (~32 seconds) to respond I prefer to consider it as "offline" :)
don't forget to disable ping for this gateway, because finaly you will have a DDOS effect of the "offline" gw. :-)
Well, If the host is already offline then it doesn't matter to kill it more XD
Thanks.