Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > > I would use an extra branch flag here. > > Keepalives are sent based on nat_bflag and sipping_bflag. You can set both > no matter it is actually a register from a natted phone or not. > That's the solution we tried to implement

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

Hello, On 27/02/15 09:26, Sebastian Damm wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Juha Heinanen > wrote: > > Sebastian Damm writes: > > > Does anyone have a hint, how to keep the IPv6 registrations > alive? Thanks > > in advance. > > use tcp.

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

s/NAT pinhole open/connection alive/g On 02/27/2015 02:41 PM, Moritz Graf wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > maybe it could be a solution to lower the registration interval for ipv6 > users to ~30 seconds. This would keep the NAT pinhole open. > Of course this will cause high traffic + registrar load. To

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

Hi Sebastian, maybe it could be a solution to lower the registration interval for ipv6 users to ~30 seconds. This would keep the NAT pinhole open. Of course this will cause high traffic + registrar load. To reduce this, you could only require a authentication every ~20 minutes. For the registers i

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > how is it possible that a new sip phone that implements ipv6 does not > implement tcp and ssl? or is it so that you don't want to use tcp? > Actually, it's the latter. Our current high availability setup reilies on anycast. And with TCP, t

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

Sebastian Damm writes: > Okay, should have added: UDP, please. how is it possible that a new sip phone that implements ipv6 does not implement tcp and ssl? or is it so that you don't want to use tcp? -- juha ___ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

On 27 Feb 2015, at 09:04, Sebastian Damm wrote: > Hi, > > while testing IPv6 with customers, we fell over quite a few cases, where > customers aren't reachable on inbound calls most of the time. And digging > into this, we found the home router firewall as the cause for those problems. > > N

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

On 27 Feb 2015, at 09:07, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Sebastian Damm writes: > >> Does anyone have a hint, how to keep the IPv6 registrations alive? Thanks >> in advance. > > use tcp. What is the problem? There is no need for any keep-alived in IPv6. /O __

Re: [SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

Hi, On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Sebastian Damm writes: > > > Does anyone have a hint, how to keep the IPv6 registrations alive? Thanks > > in advance. > > use tcp. > Okay, should have added: UDP, please. Best Regards, Sebastian __

[SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

Sebastian Damm writes: > Does anyone have a hint, how to keep the IPv6 registrations alive? Thanks > in advance. use tcp. -- juha ___ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.si

[SR-Users] Keeping Registrations alive in IPv6 scenarios

Hi, while testing IPv6 with customers, we fell over quite a few cases, where customers aren't reachable on inbound calls most of the time. And digging into this, we found the home router firewall as the cause for those problems. Normally, you would think, all the NAT problems cease when switching