On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:57 PM, pablo platt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I tried using ice-lite and I'm getting four stun connectivity checks which > I reply to and than I'm not getting any more packets. > In my test Firefox is the offerer. > When using an MCU, is it better that Firefox will send the offer or the > MCU? > > Currently, the peer that sends the offer is also the DTLS server? > Does that means that after the ICE connectivity checks Firefox waits for a > DTLS handshake on the selected IP/Port? Yes. > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7/31/13 11:33, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Does Firefox support ice-lite? > > > > > > I would Firefox to interwork with an ice-lite implementation just fine. > If > > you find any issues with doing so, please let us know. > > > > Is there a reason not to use ice-lite when building MCU? > > > > > > Using ICE Lite in an MCU is probably okay in the majority of deployment > > scenarios, since they will generally be deployed in non-NATed, > > non-firewalled configuration. Do be aware, however, that implementing > your > > MCU with ice-lite does impose on it the limitation that it will work only > > in those kinds of deployments. > > > > -- > > Adam Roach > > Principal Platform Engineer > > [email protected] > > +1 650 903 0800 x863 > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media > _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
