On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jeremy Lainé <jeremy.la...@m4x.org> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, it's good to have alternatives. FYI, as a workaround > I am > currently using qualify=yes. > > However I'd still like to understand why the "keepalive" option is currently > not being > applied to websockets. The option is there, and is implemented for multiple > transports, so > I'd like to understand the rationale for not having websocket support.
Both of those features were written for Asterisk 11, however, lightweight NAT keep-alive was written prior to WebSocket support. > Either this is by design, in which case it needs to be documented, or it's an > oversight, > in which case I'd be happy to fix it. I'd go with oversight. -- Matthew Jordan Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
