[Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP SIP

[Jeff Leung]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-
> users-bounces at 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 at 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?
> 
>