| < Previous by Date | Date Index | Next by Date > |
| < Previous in Thread | Thread Index | Next in Thread > |
It would be greylisted if there is a timeout, but because there are no alternatives, it would continue to be used.On 12/27/13 3:48 AM, Sergey Pavlov wrote:
Am I understand correctly that in such case UDP transport will not be grey-listed in case of failure a transaction failure? I.e. failed transaction will not influence on other signaling with corresponding IP.
I am ok with allowing greylisting to be disabled entirely. It is already a last-ditch measure; if you're observing actual timeouts in the field, things are pretty bad. One thing that might make sense to do is to only greylist after the tuple fails to respond to a stand-alone OPTIONS request (ie; we see a transaction timeout, and then send a quick OPTIONS request to test whether this was a problem specific to the transaction/dialog; if that OPTIONS request times out too, we greylist, or maybe even blacklist).
In our case we will be satisfied even with second option. Indeed, greylisting can be really useful for results obtained from DNS lookup. But I think that ability to disable greylisting completely (or according to some predefined list) still should provided. In fact we have two conditions which may cause unanswered requests on UAS side:
1) bug in SIP stack implementation which is triggered by some specific requests;
2) remote UA overloaded, completely down or unreachable because of hardware or network malfunction.
Greylisting is good strategy for case (2) but can be real pain for case (1) even with results of real DNS lookups. Just imagine the case when all DNS records points to devices with the same SIP stack implementation thus all of them can be greylisted by specific SIP request. Since there is no efficient method to distinguish (1) and (2) from UAC point of view it would be good to provide some means to control greylisting strategy for resipprocate stack user.