On 9/24/07, Damien Sandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le lundi 24 septembre 2007 à 11:34 +0200, Ali Sabil a écrit : > > > Then can you explain us how ICE can help when STUN does not ? I would > > > like to see your argumentation here. > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but STUN is generally about finding your > > external IP address, and determining the type of NAT you are sitting > > behind, it is just a subset of the techniques needed to achieve a > > quite reliable NAT traversal. ICE as a method, makes use of STUN among > > others. So I don't see why you oppose STUN to ICE ? > > Simply because in most of the cases the "STUN part" of ICE is enough. > STUN won't work when you are behind Symmetric NAT, in that case you should use > a TURN server. > > I know no public TURN server. > > So there are still plenty of cases where ICE proposes a solution that does > not really help. > > Although TURN will almost always provide connectivity to a client, it > comes at high cost to the provider of the TURN server. It is therefore > desirable to use TURN as a last resort only, preferring other mechanisms > (such as STUN or direct connectivity) when possible. >
Thank you for the explanation :) > > > I had decided not to participate to that thread, but there are always > > > people who do not know what they are talking about. What a pity. > > > > I am sorry if I don't know what am talking about, it is just that > > Ekiga never worked reliably for me ! > > And did empathy allow you to do a SIP connection using ICE in a reliable > way ? Nop. I don't think that SIP nor H323 are usable for me. Anyway, I am sorry if I offended you in anyway, we can have another discussion about Ekiga if you are interested in having some feedback, I think the main topic for this thread is Empathy, not Empathy vs. Ekiga. -- Ali _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
