> -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:56 AM > To: Dan Wing; Cullen Jennings; Bruce Lowekamp > Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List > Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 00:32 > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Bruce > Lowekamp' > > Cc: 'P2PSIP Mailing List' > > Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer > > > > Reports indicate that roughly 25% of NATs would block such > > incoming packets. > > > > This means that a TURN client, trying to use a random TURN > > server's transport address that is published into the p2p > > overlay, would get a 75% success rate. > > If the TURN client tried two TURN servers it would get a > > success rate of 87.5%, and so on, up to trying 11 TURN > > servers to get a success rate of 99.9%. > > > > > > Those success rates include no calculations about TURN > > servers that have crashed, had their p2p-TURN application > > terminated, had their NATs crash or otherwise lose state, etc. > > And? > > That doesn't seem so bad to me. When a peers goes live > (attempts to connect), it > would then try to find a working STUN/TURN server. After a > few attempts, it is > likely to find a working one. A success of 87.5% after 2 > tries seems very good to me.
Ok. I guess it depends on if it's going to find a working TURN server upon initialization of the application, or if it waits until it needs to make an active call. > Also, the alternative is that the servers themselves do a lot > of self-assestment which takes some time. A self-qualification procedure won't take more than a few seconds to determine if you're behind a non-p2p-friendly NAT and thus cannot be a TURN server. And that self- qualification only needs to happen upon initialization of the application or aquiring a new WAN address (both of which indicate, with high likelyhood, that you might be behind a different NAT). > I'm also thinking that if somehow we could make the process > of being a STUN/TURN server > and discovering others/joining the overlap mandatory, then we > wouldn't have the problem > that everybody would opt out of being used as a STUN or TURN server. > > (By mandatory, I don't mean "the spec says it's mandatory: I > mean the procedures would be > intertwined enough that it would not be possible, or at least > very difficult, to > disable the STUN and TURN server). -d > Just thinking out loud... _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
