[jdev] XEP-0199 (XMPP Ping) to test reliability

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Jan 21 14:21:43 CST 2008


Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Mon Jan 21 18:52:54 2008, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
>>> In gajim we send whitespace ping if we haven't received or sent 
>>> anything in the past 55 seconds (cause some nat server close 
>>> connection if nothing happen in a minute)
>>> But whitespace ping are not enough, so replacing it with xmpp-ping 
>>> with the same time would be nice.
>>>
>>>
>> Mhh. Okay. Whitespace pings aren't enough to tell if the connection is 
>> actively able to send and receive packets. XEP-0199 tells you not only 
>> that, but it also tells you whether the thing you're pinging is 
>> willing and able to respond.
>>
>> Both have a use, although for c2s links, XEP-0198 is rather more 
>> powerful.
>>
>> Don't confuse those use-cases, because whether or not you use XEP-0199 
>> to test c2s connectivity, whitespace pings are still lighter, and 
>> perfect for keeping recalcitrant NATs in line.
>>
>> XEP-0199 is particularly useful when you're expecting a response, but 
>> don't seem to be getting anything.
>>
>>
>>> about the time for answer, are some network connection or server so 
>>> slow that it can reply only 20 seconds later? I have no feedback on 
>>> that, but isn't 5 or 10 seconds enough?
>>
>> HF radio links would need much more, whereas a DSL link would need less.
>>
>> A good rule of thumb might be 10 times the normal RTT. (Which you can 
>> detirmine by the usual response to XEP-0199 pings).
>>
>> IMHO, a nice UI would simply note that the latency seemed tremendously 
>> high, and offer to reconnect, rather than kill the session - as Michal 
>> pointed out, the user often knows what the situation is.
>>
>> Dave.
> 
> Ha yes I didn't know XEP 198 has a ping section. But we don't get an 
> answer, at least with my ejabberd. And in this case an answer is 
> usefulle to know if server is still alive. So I think XEP 199 is better.

XEP-0198 needs to be cleaned up a bit. I promised Justin I would do that 
but haven't gotten around to it yet. :(

P

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20080121/fb221bdf/attachment-0002.bin>


More information about the JDev mailing list