Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, > >> Obviously I'm not a client guy, but I've been told not all clients have the >> ability to set their sockets to do that, depending on the OS. >> >>> I think that's a bit network-centric viewpoint. I'm comfortable with >>> leaving the NAT-traversal responsibility on the client. (which kind of >>> gets to the root of the problem, which is NATs are client-server >>> centric). Then some things (such as server's decision how to keep the >>> connections alive) don't have to concern us. >> Ironically I'm also trying to let the client do it - by having it tell the >> proxy "I'm smart enough to keep this connection alive by myself, if you're >> smart enough to use >> these mechanisms". > > I agree with Hadriel. The idea is to let the client do it, so that the proxy > doesn't need to handle it, e.g. by providing short registration refresh > timers etc in order to make sure the NAT bindings stay open.
For which sake sending a CRLF seems perfectly sufficient to me, without any additional negotiation stuff. -jiri > > Regards, > > Christer > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
