ICE allows you to have multiple STUN servers. In the diagram you provided, Peer A could contact Peer C, Peer D, and Peer B, and would notice different answers from some (or all) of them. All of those different answers can be provided as different candidates (a=candidate) in the call setup message.
-d > -----Original Message----- > From: JiangXingFeng [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:37 AM > To: 'P2PSIP Mailing List' > Subject: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer > > Hi, all: > > > > In order to make the peers serve each other, some peers with > special capabilities could be exploited to play the STUN/TURN > server role for other peers who are behind NAT. Guys in > P2PSIP community has agreed with that peer behind NAT should > seek help from other peers, not centralized STUN/TURN server. > > > > But which kinds of peers are qualified for playing STUN/TURN > server? Of course, Peers on the public internet could take > this responsibility. I also learned from the list that peers > behind p2p-friendly NAT (with end-point independent mapping > and filtering behavior) also could do the same work. But from > my point of view, ICE negotiation procedure may fail if > choosing this kind of peer as STUN/TURN server. > > > > Let's show an example: > > > > Peer A and peer B want to communicate directly. NAT2 is a > p2p-friendly NAT. So peer C would be considered as a > candidate STUN server. If peer A choose the Peer C as its > STUN server, peer A will get a mapping on the NAT1 which is > in the address realm of private network. And Peer A will tell > peer B this server reflexive address. But peer B could not > reach it because it is in different address realm. > > > > Am I missing something? Comments are appreciated! > > > > Regards! > > -- > > Jiang XingFeng > > > > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
