On 03/23/2011 10:19 AM, Todd R. Hodgen wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joegen Baclor [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:56 PM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Cc: Todd R. Hodgen > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01.sipphone.com > is gone... > > On 03/23/2011 09:46 AM, Todd R. Hodgen wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joegen Baclor >> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:42 PM >> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software >> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? > stun01.sipphone.com >> is gone... >> >> On 03/23/2011 06:44 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: >>> I think this point was that is stun server was no longer accessible >>> because it had been discontinued so he was just giving everyone a >>> friendly heads up. I would simply thank him and let it go at that. >> Come on Tony! Light discussions like this is fun :-) Here's mine: >> >> --- >> >> Aside from determining the external IP address, sipX does not really use >> STUN to guess the actual ports reported by STUN (or does it?). It >> assumes a static port map. This begs the question, should we really use >> STUN to determine that external IP? Can an alternative method do this? >> Perhaps like the command below? >> >> curl -s --url http://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ | grep 'myipaddress' | >> egrep -o '([[:digit:]]{1,3}\.){3}[[:digit:]]{1,3}' >> _______________________________________________ > For argument sake, what if that site disappears, or changes the format of > their response, then you have a hard coded solution that becomes null and > void. Maybe a command like that, but have several so there can be a straw > poll to see which one is valid and make an informed decision based on that. > > ------------------------- > >> I am not saying we use ipaddresslocation.org as the actual service. I >> am simply pointing out that this can be done using an alternative >> means. An HTTP page can be easily hosted anywhere. Perhaps >> http://www.sipfoundry.org/whatismyip where we can install our own page >> without the ads. > > Okay, that is a reasonable solution. Maybe this in a part of your idea, but > it's not obvious to me, so I would point out it would be good to develop a > solution that somehow has redundancy, to support enterprise accounts. > Relying on one source, when a secondary source could be developed would be a > great scenario. For that rare occasion when the example site SipFoundry.org > is down for maintenance, there needs to be an automatic failover to a > secondary source. > > That really gets to the crux of what started this discussion. The stun > server went away, so services started to fail because there was not a > secondary method of accomplishing STUN. > > Having said all this, I think your solution looks good as a starting point.
As for plans, no I do not have one just yet. Was just thinking out loud. Redundancy/survivability is always a good thing, yes. I am sure that this item would find it's way to 4.6. I guess the most immediate action item for this thread is to change the default stun service in 4.4 to an actual working server before it is released as final and to thank Robert for the heads up :-) _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
