asterisk users - Oct 2010 - OpenVPN over TCP 1194 rather than UDP 1194 - Is there an adverse effect when running Asterisk?

Hi Everyone,

For some reason a few phones connected to a pfSense box can't make or allow
in OpenVPN in port 1194 UDP. So, I established the VPN tunnel on 1194 TCP
and it works fine. I would like to know if there is any disadvantages to
using TCP over UDP for the tunnel when using Asterisk or is just as reliable
and solid as a UDP tunnel?

Thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20101022/ff708427/attachment.htm

On Friday 22 October 2010 09:02:13 Bruce B wrote:
> For some reason a few phones connected to a pfSense box can't make or
> allow in OpenVPN in port 1194 UDP. So, I established the VPN tunnel on
> 1194 TCP and it works fine. I would like to know if there is any
> disadvantages to using TCP over UDP for the tunnel when using Asterisk
> or is just as reliable and solid as a UDP tunnel?
Yes, there is.  For the same reason why RTP runs over UDP, not TCP:
congestion control wreaks havoc with realtime communications.  I'd really
recommend figuring out why UDP is not working for you, instead of trying to
use TCP for voice communications.

-- 
Tilghman Lesher
Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer
twitter: Corydon76 | IRC: Corydon76-dig (Freenode)
Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Bruce B <bruceb444 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> For some reason a few phones connected to a pfSense box can't make or
allow
> in OpenVPN in port 1194 UDP. So, I established the VPN tunnel on 1194 TCP
> and it works fine. I would like to know if there is any disadvantages to
> using TCP over UDP for the tunnel when using Asterisk or is just as
reliable
> and solid as a UDP tunnel?
> Thanks
Don't do it.

Here is a possibly evil suggestion, though -- almost nobody blocks port 53.

-M