<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Here is the theory behind "TCP for Mobile Phones" recommendations: <br>
<ul>
<li>tcp - keep alive is supposed to happen from the Server side
(SBC) therefore</li>
<li>application layer can go to sleep, and firewall pin hole is
kept open at the driver level</li>
<li>thus conserving power needed to load and wake up the
application.</li>
</ul>
UAC's only need to register at the SIP application layer once every
10 minutes or so. <br>
<p>In real life however, that doesn't seem to work out all that well
due to SBC limitations (both Acme and Sonus; details on request)
and limited support from the various phone app vendors. Plus, if
the TCP connection "gets lost" the risk interval of not receiving
a phone call is just that much longer. <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>John<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/17/2017 16:12, jungle Boogie
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKE2PDvUQvUhUoMedM-e4qJwV5+L5472QZ2K4gXYd_AcHq8Nxw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">On 16 July 2017 at 19:28, Colton Conor <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com"><colton.conor@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Overall TCP just always
seems to work, and UPD depends on the situation of the network. TCP is
better for battery consumption on mobile sip applications as well.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Knowing that TCP uses more overhead just by being TCP, is it really
better for mobile phone batteries?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>