H.323's "keepAlive" mechanism

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Mon Jan 29 10:06:47 EST 2001


Frank,

For (1), It was felt that this was the appropriate action.  I believe that
Chris Purvis had some good comments on this topic some time back-- perhaps
he can address this.

As for (2), absence of the TTL means nothing more than that the endpoint
does not support TTL.  However, I have implemented a GK such that, if a
value is not provided, I will provide one in the RCF.  However, to ensure
interoperability, I do not expect to get LW RRQs-- I use the old V1
procedure of sending IRQs :-)

Nothing has changed in this area since V2.  Essentially, the whole procedure
is optional, though I will also say highly important and should be
implemented by the endpoints.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Derks" <frank.derks at PHILIPS.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:05 AM
Subject: H.323's "keepAlive" mechanism


> According to the text in section 7.2.2.1 of H.323v4 (11/2000), as a
response
> to a RRQ, a GK may respond with an RCF containing a timeToLive that is
equal to
> or less than the timeToLive from the RRQ. This raises two questions:
>
> 1) Why isn't it allowed for a GK to respond with a greater value, or any
value for
>    that matter?
> 2) If the EP does not specify a timeToLive, should this be treated as a
value
>    of "0" and does this make it impossible for a GK to impose any
timeToLive
>    value?
>
> Frank
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list