At 20:47 20/09/2006, Andres wrote:
This is a lot
more complex than it sounds, I know, but I think if I have more
data to work with, I might be able to come up with a more acceptable scenario
than we currently employ.
We too tried to use STUN as often as possible with all our
users. Its fine at the beginning because you can fine tune everybody when you have a
small customer base. As our network grew we found ourselves taking in more and more
customer support calls from clients using STUN. The most common problem one had to deal
with was that of NO Audio with customers changing routers from simple 'cone NAT'
to 'symmetric NAT' type which of course breaks STUN. In the end we found it a lot
more economical to pay for more bandwidth and use multiple RTP Proxy servers than to pay
for more Tech Support people. It has worked out beautifully. I can't remember that
last support call we ever had from somebody complaining about no audio. It had to be more
that 2 years ago.
Whereas I don't add any new information value, let me at least concur that this is the
bottom line.
It is what it is which is an economic decision driven by cost incurred through some STUN
unreliablity.
in the long-run, the standardization answer to lacking reliability is via ICE, but
that's something
today's deployments cannot rely on yet.
-jiri
--
Jiri Kuthan
http://iptel.org/~jiri/