Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] UDP binding timeouts

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT)

> The keepalives need to be sent a little more aggressively 
> than the timeout.  If you consider the keepalive itself could 
> get dropped between the application and the NAT (such as a 
> noisy WiFi connection or a busy Ethernet segment or an 
> over-taxed NAT), the keepalives need to be even more aggressive.

This is where I think we are having different views.

Cullen and I seemed to have seen different data. More like
2-5 minutes being very common. We did see NATs with 30 s or
1 minute timeouts, but we considered them to be broken.

This is really the question: do we want to encourage NAT vendors
to have longer timeouts (like the suggested 2 minutes), or do we
want shorter timeouts?

Personally, I think 30s is too short. I'd like us to recommend at least
1 minute.

Other views?

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:10:08 -0700 (PDT)

> Personally, I think 30s is too short. I'd like us to recommend at
> least 1 minute.
>
> Other views?

I'm sorry, are you saying that we have different views that 
keepalive messages can be dropped between the application and the 
NAT (which is the excerpt from my email you quoted above), or
that we have different views on the minimum duration of a UDP
binding that BEHAVE should require?

I'm happy with requiring a 2 minute timeout and I agree a 30 
second timeout is too aggressive.

-d