> >> > >> I think I agree with both views, which are a) We need to > >> address cases where the customer uses dynamic addresses and > b) > >> using STUN is not a very reliable way to discover the > external > >> address. > >> > >> However, it seems to me that in exactly those > cases where the > >> customer has a small network with only one gateway to the > >> Internet using a dynamic address STUN would be > quite reliable > >> to discover this external IP address. STUN becomes more > >> unreliable in larger networks with several gateways, but in > >> these cases it is much more likely that the customer uses a > >> fixed IP address assigned by the ITSP. > > > >The caveat with STUN discovery is that it won't always give you the > >right answer unless the the STUN server is at the same IP address as > the > >thing you want to send to. > > > >So if your ITSP has STUN in their proxy, you're good - if not, you > might > >sometimes get the wrong answer by querying a STUN server > somewhere else > >(especially with respect to the ports). > > > > Ok, that makes sense. My vote would be then to let the admin > take that decision and not second guess them. > > I think sipXbridge can already use STUN as an option. What > about the NAT traversal feature in the proxy?
I just commited changes to the merge_proxy branch (r12946) that adds support for STUN. I also re-opened XCF-2181 to request the management changes related to that new feature. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
