> Doesnt STUN have serious problems with symmetric NAT's? (i.e. NATs > where the port you use on the client is different to the one the > NAT assigns to you publicly).
Yes (as I understand it) Well, when you say "serious problems" I assume you mean it can't traverse a symmetric NAT. I guess that is serious if you have a symmetric NAT, but the fact that it can help with 3 out of the 4 (?) NAT types does seem helpful on the whole. I'm not sure there is any solution out that that will traverse a symmetric NAT is there? That might be a case of falling back to P2P or "bad luck, buy a new router". > As I suggested previously, the most likely to work automatic NAT > traversal technology will likely be UPnP certainly for home > ADSL users as it is being built into most ADSL routers, its also > built into some software NATs like WinXP ICS and Winroute. Yes - this is true (to a point). But it doesn't have to be an either/or I think. Those with UPnP enabled routers can use UPnP, those with non-uPnP routers could use STUN. Where UPnP falls down (I am told) is where you have cascading NAT's - if your ISP has NAT'ed your connection at their end (to save IP addresses etc), your UPnP ADSL router won't help you much. > Yep this is the point I tried to get across last time this was > discussed, glad to see other people agree that we should first > work on P2P voice between two users as I agree that it is the > most likely use case, and anything more complex like multiuser > voice chat can always be solved by a different spec just like > we do with standard chat and MUC. Yes - although thinking of my phone usage patterns at work, it is quite common to be in a 1-to-1 conversation, and then have the need to conference someone in. If it is fairly seamless to change protocols that is fine, but it would be a pain to have to "hang up" and then "re-dial" to add the third person. Michael. _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
