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