orward, but was still missing
many pieces of the big puzzle. But slowly this picture is getting more
and more complete, with ICE being one very important piece of this
puzzle!
But, once again - my question was NOT related to ICE, it was about UACs
able to do nothing but plain old STUN :(
Regards
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> AFAIK TURN is just required in case both endpoints are behind
> different symmetric NAT routers. IMHO there is enough cases in which
> this doesn't happen so ICE is really *suitable*.
It's really good to hear that I'm not alone with this opinion ;-)
--
mail: tho...@g
with information from it's very own local
sockets
I'd strongly opt for b), however there are implementations doing a). So
where can I point them to prove that b) is better?
Regards,
Thomas Gelf
--
mail: tho...@gelf.net
web: http://thomas.gelf.net/
uot;intelligent" once it detects being behind a symmetric
NAT.
So, once again, the question is: is there really no document stating how
an UAC, that detected itself being behind a symmetric NAT, shall behave?
Stating that it SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT write useless reflected
information to SIP
ITE initiated dialogs, terminating the dialog consists of sending
a BYE.
Best regards,
Thomas Gelf
--
mail: tho...@gelf.net
web: http://thomas.gelf.net/
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
ht
Saúl Ibarra wrote:
> I'm not an expert myself, but hope this gives you a little hint :) The
> fact that a user is behind symmetric NAT doesn't mean that it will
> need assistance 100% of the times (only 99,999% xD). If user A is
> behind a symmetric NAT and user B is on open internet without NAT an
s. I would really
like to try explaining some vendor what they are doing wrong - however I
did not find anything "proving" what the correct behaviour would be in
this case.
Can anyone give me a little hint?
Best regards,
Thomas Gelf
-
Bhanu K S (bhks) wrote:
> I believe 422 can be send only by UAS not UAC.
> If UAC receives 200 OK with Session-Expires as 10 seconds(which is less
> than 90 default), it is against RFC.
> So it is UAC implementation either it can continue to be in the call or
> disconnect.
That's correct, I didn
e call? Pl clarify.
No, IMO it is completely legal to provide a lower-than-the-default value
here (please correct me if I'm wrong). If the given value is two low,
you still have the option to send "422 Session Timer too small".
Best regards,
Thomas Gelf
--
mail: tho...@gelf.
lients Contact information based on other mechanisms - otherwise the
Contact shall be used "as-is". Doing so a registrar would still act
perfectly RFC-conform - and automagically solve a few more NAT issues.
Are those assumptions correct? Looking forward to your feedback, I'd
like to
o a B2BUA. It sends 180, UAC starts playing
RBT. B2BUA makes part of a large application, does some database
lookup, discovers who you are - and sends out 183 "We are so
sorry..."
[UC4]: UAC with integrated Voicemail. It starts sending one or more
180 replies, after a timeout the 18
11 matches
Mail list logo
