[Users] UDP Fragmentation (again)
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at voice-system.ro
Tue Feb 28 10:05:14 CET 2006
Hi,
Helge Waastad wrote:
>Hi,
>Yes, I've started to clean up the headers from cisco,
>but I do agree that som generic "compression" function wuld be nice to
>have. As long as all crucial information is kept.
>
>
compression without any loss :)
>Is there really a way to use compact format withing the script (without
>regexp textops)?
>
>
guess right now the only way is to use subst() from textops :(
regards,
bogdan
>br hw
>
>man, 27,.02.2006 kl. 19.02 +0200, skrev Bogdan-Andrei Iancu:
>
>
>>Hi Helge,
>>
>>if you have problems on client side with UDP fragmentation, there are
>>two ways to go:
>> 1) try to reduce the size of the message; CISCO sends a lot of
>>useless stuff in the requests; first option will be get rid of useless
>>headers; second to use short format for hdrs with long names (can be
>>done from script); third to merge headers of same type (VIA, contact,
>>route) to get rid of extra hdr names (cannot be done from script).
>> 2) switch on TCP, but more complex problem can pop up - maintaining
>>TCP connection to UAC from behind NAT, extra load does TCP conns
>>manipulation, more size in packages due double RR (due protocol switch),
>>etc...
>>
>>maybe a "compacting function" will be useful to have - it will do 1)
>>second and third option:
>> if(msg_len>UDP_frag)
>> compact_msg();
>>
>>regards,
>>bodgan
>>
>>Helge Waastad wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>I've just had my first fragmentation problem.
>>>Since I'm using rr on my dispatchers and my proxies, INVITES from a
>>>gateway (i.e cisco) gets too large and are being fragmented...and of
>>>course not very good for nat'ed udp clients.
>>>
>>>Are there any other options than to remove_hf of less important headers
>>>like Remote-Party-ID and/or User-Agent?
>>>
>>>I guess TCP would be an option....
>>>
>>>br hw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
More information about the Users
mailing list