No, it was shorthand for the latter. The intent was to emphasise that there’s nothing about Kamailio which is inherently confounded by fragmentation. In principle, that’s right. Practically, this depends on the behaviour of various intermediaries. I have seen both behaviours. In the scenarios I have troubleshot, receiving only the first fragment on the other side of—for example—a NAT gateway is fairly common. No, it doesn’t. Sloppy phraseology on my part. — Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

Yeah, that’s right. A lot of the real-world UDP fragmentation issues revolve around operating through NATs or otherwise stateful firewalls, however. For instance, as you may know, they are ubiquitous in the SDN architectures of the major public cloud providers. There are some traditional arguments against TCP signalling in high-capacity service provider cores, mostly having to do with overhead, resource consumption, attack vectors, end-to-end latency vs TCP congestion control, etc. These have got less salient with increases in computing power, backbone bandwidth and overall public Internet reliability over the last two decades. Nevertheless, some of them are still persuasive in various scenarios. On the other hand, signalling from the access layer/edge to customer endpoints across the public Internet perhaps should be exclusively TCP or TLS at this point. The near-universal NATification and CGNining of such endpoints combined with the overall trend toward increasing SIP and SDP payloads is a particularly insulting cocktail for UDP. — Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/