2009/1/2 Aymeric Moizard <[email protected]>: > > I have used the ser_stun.c/.h files to add STUN support > on the socket of kamalio. > > I have modified the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS results because > wireshark is not analysing it the same way although I'm > not very sure who is right on this: wireshark versus ser. > > I hope you guys can work on merging and testing. Coming > from ser, I guess the code is pretty good!
Let me a question. What is the purpose/advantage of having a STUN server running in the SIP proxy/registrar port? AFAIK this is just valid for a single purpose: allowing STUN *just for SIP signalling* when the device is located behind symmetric NAT (in which "normal" STUN doesn't work since the public mapping the router assigns depends also on the destination ip:port, and not just on the private source ip:port). This is: having a STUN server running in port 5060 in the same host where our SIP proxy/registrar runs is just valid for a UA behind symmetric NAT because it can set the "Contact" header with the mapped public ip:port, so it will be able to receive in-dialog requests (without NAT solution at SIP level in the proxy), but it will never be valid for RTP, since the destination of the RTP will never be PROXY_IP:5060, so the mapping our symmetric NAT router will do for the RTP is completely unknown. So, what is the advantage of a STUN server in port 5060? Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
