[jdev] Message sending performance XEP-0124

Marcel Waldvogel marcel.waldvogel at uni-konstanz.de
Sat Jul 2 10:05:38 UTC 2016


With BOSH you can do the same things as with direct c2s XMPP (and even more, because guessing an RID is enough). So what should be the security concerns of using 5222 directly instead of 5280?

-Marcel Waldvogel

-----Original Message-----
From: Vaibhav Ranglani <ranglani.vaibhav at gmail.com>
To: Jabber/XMPP software development list <jdev at jabber.org>
Sent: Sa., 02 Juli 2016 11:57
Subject: Re: [jdev] Message sending performance XEP-0124

Thanks for the inputs Florian.

This question is then related to the deployment side. Should I proxy the
nginx server to ejabberd port 5222? If yes, then can somebody point to a
post where this has been explained?

Also wouldn't directly exposing port 5222 to the internet cause security
concerns?

Thanks
Vaibhav

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> On 01.07.2016 16:22, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
> > For reliability requirements over wireless connections: don't use BOSH;
> > do use Stream Management (XEP-0198)
>
> Exactly. And if you want the BOSH advantage over XMPP's TCP binding,
> i.e., using standard HTTP(S) ports, then use XMPP's WebSocket binding
> (RFC 7395) + Stream Management.
>
> Some background to this thread:
> https://community.igniterealtime.org/message/258562#comment-258562
>
> I have not much experience with BOSH as I don't/seldom use it. I've
> merged Smack's BOSH branch when I took over Smack and fixed a few
> things, but the code should be considered unmaintained.
>
> I wonder if BOSH is suitable for mobile environments. In my experience
> those environments require being able to check the underlying TCP
> connection for liveness, which is not trivial when using BOSH I imagine.
> Using the BOSH Technique in mobile environments could cause serious UX
> issues if the first connection hangs in the long-polling state because
> the TCP connection broke down silently.
>
> WebSocket doesn't have this issues, and provides the same feature set as
> BOSH when used with Stream Management. I think it is the future and that
> there is no real reason, besides implementation availability, to use
> BOSH any more. Sadly there is no support for XMPP over WebSocket in
> Smack (yet).
>
> - Florian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe at jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20160702/07591d72/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2046 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20160702/07591d72/attachment.bin>


More information about the JDev mailing list