Just some thoughts based on my experience... After months trying to make everything work using rtpproxy-mediaproxy with almost everything accomplished but video, I tried to switch to stun solution. All my problems are gone now, I have audio, video, presence and instant messages working like a charm. And most important media server doesn't flow thru my server so network load remains very low. I have been testing for some days now and I'm quite happy since I still have to stumble on major problems. Now some considerations... On a poll onsip.org STUN usage is very low and rtpproxy-mediaproxy rule as NAT trasversal solution. Why don't people use stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found? What are main advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions? I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
thank you all for your two cents ;)
Giovanni Balasso wrote:
Just some thoughts based on my experience... After months trying to make everything work using rtpproxy-mediaproxy with almost everything accomplished but video, I tried to switch to stun solution. All my problems are gone now, I have audio, video, presence and instant messages working like a charm. And most important media server doesn't flow thru my server so network load remains very low. I have been testing for some days now and I'm quite happy since I still have to stumble on major problems. Now some considerations... On a poll onsip.org STUN usage is very low and rtpproxy-mediaproxy rule as NAT trasversal solution. Why don't people use stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found? What are main advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions? I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
thank you all for your two cents ;)
STUN does not work if your NAT is Symmetric. For example all Linux NATs or routers with Linux OS like the Linksys ones. Unless you have full control on what type of NAT your customer will deploy, it will be very hard to stick to an all STUN solution.
Why don't people use stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found? What are main advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions? I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
thank you all for your two cents ;)
STUN does not work if your NAT is Symmetric. For example all Linux NATs or routers with Linux OS like the Linksys ones. Unless you have full control on what type of NAT your customer will deploy, it will be very hard to stick to an all STUN solution.
I have many linuxes around there, and many linksys routers too, and had no problems with STUN at all. In fact, when I run my stun-client application behind a linux-like OS, this is what I'm told:
Port restricted NAT detected - VoIP will work with STUN Preserves port number Does not supports hairpin of media
Regards,
Lucas
Hi Lucas. May I ask you which STUN server are you using? TNX
Juan
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Lucas Aimaretto Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: andres@telesip.net; 'Giovanni Balasso' Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] NAT considerations...
Why don't people use stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found? What are main advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions? I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
thank you all for your two cents ;)
STUN does not work if your NAT is Symmetric. For example all Linux NATs or routers with Linux OS like the Linksys ones. Unless you have full control on what type of NAT your customer will deploy, it will be very hard to stick to an all STUN solution.
I have many linuxes around there, and many linksys routers too, and had no problems with STUN at all. In fact, when I run my stun-client application behind a linux-like OS, this is what I'm told:
Port restricted NAT detected - VoIP will work with STUN Preserves port number Does not supports hairpin of media
Regards,
Lucas
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 06/07/2005
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Andres -
Giovanni Balasso -
Juan -
Lucas Aimaretto