Understood.  My plan is to use UDP for all "trunking" type endpoints at TCP for desk phones as they will likely receive more NOTIFYs and in most cases being behind NAT where the longer connection timeout comes in handy.  I also found a good paper on the subject:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~kumiko/publish/IPTComm08_paper.pdf

In regard to connection timeout how does Freeswitch handle this?  I noticed the new Sofia parameters and I was curious if the connection lifetime was configurable as well.

BR,

Spencer

On May 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "Jeff Leung" <jleung@v10networks.ca> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the insight.  Forgive my ignorance but if I have two Identical

Freeswitch servers with SRV records and endpoints that properly support

SRVs, why do I loose the ability to failover if one host is not reachable?

TCP is a stateful protocol. On the other hand UDP isn't, it's stateless.
It's just easier to failover with UDP than with TCP if you understand the
difference between the two protocols. I'm not saying that it's not possible
to do so with TCP, but with the way how SIP works, you'd want to use UDP if
you want failover capabilities without the headache.

Also as many of these end points are Polycoms behind NAT, I can't see any

reason I'd still need NDLB-force-rport on the profile?

Unfortunately, I don't work with Polycom phones. Brian West over here can
comment on that issue.

Since these are application servers, handling conferences, presence, etc.,

I'd

imagine I would hit other bottlenecks before I hit the TCP connection

limit.

Yes that's true, but if you had a FreeSWITCH box that purely handled SIP
messages and no media, you'd probably hit that TCP Open connection limit.

On May 8, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Jeff Leung" <jleung@v10networks.ca> wrote:

-----Original Message-----

From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org

[mailto:freeswitch- users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of

Vik Killa

Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:18 AM

To: FreeSWITCH Users Help

Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP SIP

That I would agree with, but the thing is you lose the capability of

failover in the unlikely event that a node in a FreeSWITCH cluster fail.

In my opinion, TCP seems better than UDP as you know all the SIP

packets are making to their destination.

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jeff Leung <jleung@v10networks.ca>

wrote:

  On a Linux system there is a limit of how many open TCP

connections you have.

If I can remember correctly, I think Darren from 2600hz did discuss

about the limit of open TCP connections you can have on a Linux

system. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but that seems to be the

case. And I have seen instances of that happening on a misconfigured

Squid Proxy

I never heard this before...where and how it this limit defined?

  Unless you have a crazy amount of endpoints you have to serve, TCP

probably isn't really worth it in my opinion.

Assuming it's one Open TCP connection per endpoint,  you'd probably

need more endpoints than the maximum amount of open TCP connections

to

hit that problem

How many endpoints?

  Also did I also mention that TCP connections don't really fix NAT

issues?

__________________________________________________________

____________

___ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:

consulting@freeswitch.org

http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com

FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server

http://www.cudatel.com

Official FreeSWITCH Sites

http://www.freeswitch.org

http://wiki.freeswitch.org

http://www.cluecon.com

FreeSWITCH-users mailing list

FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org

http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users

UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-use

rs

http://www.freeswitch.org

__________________________________________________________

_______________

Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:

consulting@freeswitch.org

http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com

FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server

http://www.cudatel.com

Official FreeSWITCH Sites

http://www.freeswitch.org

http://wiki.freeswitch.org

http://www.cluecon.com

FreeSWITCH-users mailing list

FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org

http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users

UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users

http://www.freeswitch.org

_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com

FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server
http://www.cudatel.com

Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://wiki.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com

FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org

_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com

FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server
http://www.cudatel.com

Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://wiki.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com

FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org