On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 12:22:22PM +0300, Yasin CANER wrote:
When i have a look ietf3261 , i couldnt find any thing this flow. Do you have any idea about it? I am looking forward to your suggestions.
It is simple, never trust the endpoint and always assume there is NAT or a statefull firewall between the endpoint and your sip server. So always send keepalives.
it is simple way to solve this and it is softphone product problem. If i did configuration as you said , it consumes so much socket , CPU and etc. in future.
I wonder that is there a something about it on ietf or protocol flows. I think it is wrong.
What do you think about it.
Thanks for reply , Daniel.
-- View this message in context: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/NatHelper-Received-adding-on-Contact... Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:35:59AM -0700, ycaner wrote:
it is simple way to solve this and it is softphone product problem. If i did configuration as you said , it consumes so much socket , CPU and etc. in future.
I can't imagine this will be a significant amount of cpu/traffic. I can only speak for my users, but near 100% is behind NAT or a statefull firewall. Treating the users as always NATed avoids a lot of headaches so far.
I wonder that is there a something about it on ietf or protocol flows. I think it is wrong.
What do you think about it.
I can't find any info about this learning process via the Contact header. But I have seen this kind of behavior with Patton SmartNode equipment, in these appliances this learning is related to the UACs keep-alive mechanism. This further supported my idea to never trust any endpoint device :)
Hello; Our goal is 100k subscriber and i know that Asterisk cannot handle 3k subscriber that sending options to keep open ports. So this situation is afraid of me. Yeah ,You re right, dont trust endpoints. I think UAc keep-alive mechanism can solve this. This is UAC's problem :) I will just warn UAC production.
Thanks for reply. Have a nice day.Cheers.
3.10.2016 16:19 tarihinde Daniel Tryba-2 [via SIP Router] yazdı:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:35:59AM -0700, ycaner wrote:
> it is simple way to solve this and it is softphone product problem. If i did
> configuration as you said , it consumes so much socket , CPU and etc. in
> future.
I can't imagine this will be a significant amount of cpu/traffic. I can
only speak for my users, but near 100% is behind NAT or a statefull
firewall. Treating the users as always NATed avoids a lot of headaches
so far.
> I wonder that is there a something about it on ietf or protocol flows. I
> think it is wrong. > > What do you think about it.
I can't find any info about this learning process via the Contact
header. But I have seen this kind of behavior with Patton SmartNode
equipment, in these appliances this learning is related to the UACs
keep-alive mechanism. This further supported my idea to never trust any
endpoint device :)
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/NatHelper-Received-adding-on-Contact...
To unsubscribe from NatHelper - Received adding on Contact header, click here . NAML
--
yasin-imza-2016.jpg (23K) http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/attachment/152257/0/yasin-imza-2016.jpg
-- View this message in context: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/NatHelper-Received-adding-on-Contact... Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
Daniel Tryba -
Yasin CANER -
ycaner