[Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP SIP

[Jeff Leung]

On a Linux system there is a limit of how many open TCP connections you have. Unless you have a crazy amount of endpoints you have to serve, TCP probably isn’t really worth it in my opinion.

Also did I also mention that TCP connections don’t really fix NAT issues?

 

From: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Thomason
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:31 AM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help
Subject: [Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP SIP

 

Hello all,
In our deployments, Freeswitch is on a public IP with most user endpoints behind NAT.  As the demand for BLFs has grown I've been forced to go to TCP due the NOTIFYs exceeding MTU. I've been reluctant to use TCP for SIP due to the increased overhead.  Currently I force a registration expiry of 600 seconds and ping all NATed endpoints.  I'm exploring the idea of switching all endpoints to TCP where available, ditching the options pings and dropping the registration expiration to 300 secs which should exceed the TCP connection timeout of almost every router I've seen.  I was currious if anyone had an experience or could point out any caveats I might run into.

Thanks in advance,
Spencer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20130508/ed5bbc7b/attachment.html