Thanks, but I'm still looking for a more direct comparison of rtpproxy vs. TURN/ICE only based on their effectiveness, nothing else.
I know both work but I would like to know of any evidence that TURN with two public IPs is more effective than rtpproxy alone. On 29 Aug 2015 18:36, "Giovanni Maruzzelli" <gmar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Both will work. > > You can check other aspects inherently to your project and implementation: > performances, integration, etc > > Rttproxy, media engine and the like can give you more services related to > the fact they are controlled by the proxy. > > sent from my mobile, > Giovanni Maruzzelli > cell: +39 347 266 56 18 > On Aug 29, 2015 7:04 PM, "Nabeel" <nabeelshik...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry previous message I sent was meant to be a quote. >> >> All my clients will use the same UAC which supports ICE/TURN, so that is >> not an issue. >> >> I just want to know which is more effective solely on the basis of NAT >> traversal ability. >> On 29 Aug 2015 18:01, "Nabeel" <nabeelshik...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That said, only clients that supports turn will use it, check your >>> clients features. >>> >>> Rtpproxy, mediaengine, and the like do not rely on clients support, they >>> are.enforced by sip proxy manipulation of sdp. >>> On 29 Aug 2015 17:02, "Giovanni Maruzzelli" <gmar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Stun/turn are the only methods used by webrtc peers, and because are >>>> used through ICE they're very effective. >>>> >>>> You can check coturn for an advanced implementation. >>>> >>>> That said, only clients that supports turn will use it, check your >>>> clients features. >>>> >>>> Rtpproxy, mediaengine, and the like do not rely on clients support, >>>> they are.enforced by sip proxy manipulation of sdp. >>>> >>>> So, actually they (turn and rtpproxy) are not alternative to each >>>> other, but complementary. >>>> Eg: your service can offer both technologies at the same time, clients >>>> choose what to do. >>>> >>>> -giovanni >>>> >>>> sent from my mobile, >>>> Giovanni Maruzzelli >>>> cell: +39 347 266 56 18 >>>> On Aug 29, 2015 5:48 PM, "Nabeel" <nabeelshik...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to know which is more effective for NAT traversal, >>>>> rtpproxy or STUN/TURN/ICE implementation. >>>>> >>>>> I heard that TURN server with one public IP can function equivalent to >>>>> rtpproxy, and TURN server with two public IPs is more effective than >>>>> rtpproxy. >>>>> >>>>> Is that true? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Users mailing list >>>>> Users@lists.opensips.org >>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Users mailing list >>>> Users@lists.opensips.org >>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@lists.opensips.org >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users