[Users] UDP Fragmentation (again)

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi,

Helge Waastad wrote:

>Hi,
>Yes, I've started to clean up the headers from cisco,
>but I do agree that som generic "compression" function wuld be nice to
>have. As long as all crucial information is kept.
>  
>
compression without any loss :)

>Is there really a way to use compact format withing the script (without
>regexp textops)?
>  
>
guess right now  the only way is to use subst() from textops :(

regards,
bogdan

>br hw
>
>man, 27,.02.2006 kl. 19.02 +0200, skrev Bogdan-Andrei Iancu:
>  
>
>>Hi Helge,
>>
>>if you have problems on client side with UDP fragmentation, there are 
>>two ways to go:
>>    1) try to reduce the size of the message; CISCO sends a lot of 
>>useless stuff in the requests; first option will be get rid of useless 
>>headers; second to use short format for hdrs with long names (can be 
>>done from script); third to merge headers of same type (VIA, contact, 
>>route) to get rid of extra hdr names (cannot be done from script).
>>    2) switch on TCP, but more complex problem can pop up - maintaining 
>>TCP connection to UAC from behind NAT, extra load does TCP conns 
>>manipulation, more size in packages due double RR (due protocol switch), 
>>etc...
>>
>>maybe a "compacting function" will be useful to have - it will do 1) 
>>second and third option:
>>    if(msg_len>UDP_frag)
>>       compact_msg();
>>
>>regards,
>>bodgan
>>
>>Helge Waastad wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>I've just had my first fragmentation problem.
>>>Since I'm using rr on my dispatchers and my proxies, INVITES from a
>>>gateway (i.e cisco) gets too large and are being fragmented...and of
>>>course not very good for nat'ed udp clients.
>>>
>>>Are there any other options than to remove_hf of less important headers
>>>like Remote-Party-ID and/or User-Agent?
>>>
>>>I guess TCP would be an option....
>>>
>>>br hw
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>