On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM, kokoska rokoska <
kokoska.rokoska@post.cz> wrote:
Anthony Minessale napsal(a):
> Yes you remove the force-contact variable from the <domain> tag and only
> set it in the individual <user> tag.
> That is how you can pick and choose which ones do the options.
>
Thank you very much, Anthony, for your answer!
Yes, I use force-contact per individual user, but if I don't see IP
address UAC sends in "Contact:" header I couldn't decide if I need to
force-contact or not (may be I can, but don't know how :-).
And even worse, I need to force-contact (apply NAT-hack) every client
behind NAT (it is obvious), but send keep-alive OPTIONS only to few of
them (and it is, may be, not obvious).
> You can also configure a force-expires on each user so the register will
> reply with a very short expiry time to
> trigger the client to re-register at any frequency you want. You can
> enable this without enabling the force-contact
> The force-contact option automatically sets the expire time to 20
> seconds but you can make it even lower if you wish.
>
Yes, I see it in the sources. I force exptime (by configuration, not by
hardcoding into sofia_reg.c :-) to much higher value, because IMO is
REGISTER processing much more expensive compared to just sending OPTIONS.
---------------
May be I am not able to clarify it enough, but I want to have
registered, lets say, about 10.000 of UACs, half of them (5.000) are
behid NAT (but I don't know which one of them and it changes frequently)
and only about 500 of them realy have to be NAT-pinged by FreeSWITCH.
There is no trouble to NAT-ping all population of 10.000 users, but I'm
in doubt if FreeSWITCH could handle this amount of SIP messages.
If you - or anybody other - have some experiences with similar amount of
NATed users, please share the information. I shall be very happy...
Thanks once more for your suggestions!