Apart from the few ways I mentioned, I don't know any other way. I am a fan of the client using STUN rather than the server compensating.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM, kokoska rokoska <<a href="mailto:kokoska.rokoska@post.cz">kokoska.rokoska@post.cz</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Anthony Minessale napsal(a):<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> Yes you remove the force-contact variable from the <domain> tag and only<br>
> set it in the individual <user> tag.<br>
> That is how you can pick and choose which ones do the options.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Thank you very much, Anthony, for your answer!<br>
<br>
Yes, I use force-contact per individual user, but if I don't see IP<br>
address UAC sends in "Contact:" header I couldn't decide if I need to<br>
force-contact or not (may be I can, but don't know how :-).<br>
And even worse, I need to force-contact (apply NAT-hack) every client<br>
behind NAT (it is obvious), but send keep-alive OPTIONS only to few of<br>
them (and it is, may be, not obvious).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> You can also configure a force-expires on each user so the register will<br>
> reply with a very short expiry time to<br>
> trigger the client to re-register at any frequency you want. You can<br>
> enable this without enabling the force-contact<br>
> The force-contact option automatically sets the expire time to 20<br>
> seconds but you can make it even lower if you wish.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I see it in the sources. I force exptime (by configuration, not by<br>
hardcoding into sofia_reg.c :-) to much higher value, because IMO is<br>
REGISTER processing much more expensive compared to just sending OPTIONS.<br>
<br>
---------------<br>
<br>
May be I am not able to clarify it enough, but I want to have<br>
registered, lets say, about 10.000 of UACs, half of them (5.000) are<br>
behid NAT (but I don't know which one of them and it changes frequently)<br>
and only about 500 of them realy have to be NAT-pinged by FreeSWITCH.<br>
There is no trouble to NAT-ping all population of 10.000 users, but I'm<br>
in doubt if FreeSWITCH could handle this amount of SIP messages.<br>
<br>
If you - or anybody other - have some experiences with similar amount of<br>
NATed users, please share the information. I shall be very happy...<br>
<br>
Thanks once more for your suggestions!<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
kokoska.rokoska<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Freeswitch-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org">Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a><br>
UNSUBSCRIBE:<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a><br>
<a href="http://www.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Anthony Minessale II<br><br>FreeSWITCH <a href="http://www.freeswitch.org/">http://www.freeswitch.org/</a><br>ClueCon <a href="http://www.cluecon.com/">http://www.cluecon.com/</a><br>
<br>AIM: anthm<br><a href="mailto:MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com">MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com</a><br>GTALK/JABBER/<a href="mailto:PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com">PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com</a><br>
IRC: <a href="http://irc.freenode.net">irc.freenode.net</a> #freeswitch<br><br>FreeSWITCH Developer Conference<br><a href="mailto:sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org">sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org</a><br><a href="http://iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888">iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888</a><br>
<a href="mailto:googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org">googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org</a><br>pstn:213-799-1400