Thanks for your Henning, at least I will sleep better knowing I am not completly idiot :-))<br><br><div>I haven't noticed related to INVITE timers (such as the 408) because I only make my client behind NAT to register and re-register and verify it is always reachable in time thanks to this TCP keep-alive. Tomorrow I will try to make a couple a calls to see if I get this 408 you mentionned.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is there a way (either with a parameter or changing source code) a to control the frequency of TCP k.a. ?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Pascal</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2010/5/7 Henning Westerholt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:henning.westerholt@1und1.de">henning.westerholt@1und1.de</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Friday 07 May 2010, Pascal Maugeri wrote:<br>
> tcp_keepalive=yes<br>
> tcp_keepidle=10<br>
> tcp_connection_lifetime=3600<br>
><br>
><br>
> The TCP connection is kept alive and TCP Keep-Alive packets are sent when<br>
> the TCP connection is idle.<br>
><br>
> But I don't understand why the time between KA is not linear:<br>
</div>> [..]<br>
<div class="im">> Could you explain me where do come from these values of 75 seconds, 23, 54<br>
> ?<br>
><br>
> Everything works well: my client behind NAT is kept connected but I'd like<br>
> to understand why it does work :-)<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Pascal,<br>
<br>
sounds indeed interesting. :-) Perhaps a problem with the internal timers.. Do<br>
noticed also other timer related problems, like for internal INVITE 408<br>
replies or similar?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Henning<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>