On 01/16/2012 10:22 PM, Chris Tilt wrote: > Mikma, > > Thanks for replying! I was afraid this list might be very empty. See below... > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Mikael Magnusson <mikma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 01/14/2012 12:36 AM, Chris Tilt wrote: >> If you want to set up a direct connection between the peers I think >> you should use SDP as usual in SIP INVITEs. > Ok, that makes sense. SDP is quite simple as I see now; I could just > add the private IP address as a tag there. Just be aware of the existence of SIP SBCs and SIP capable firewalls which needs to modify the SDP when NAT:ing the traffic. Which means you can't always rely on the SDP to not be modified as specified by the RFCs.
> I agree that hole must be maintained with some sort of keep-alive, but > what I was asking is wether the STUN and SIP packets use the same > port? That seems critical in order for the SIP packets to even make it > through the firewall. I can use the SBC on the server side with little > problem, but I can not require one on the client. Is that a usable > configuration? I found this: "I just committed a basic STUN server implementation that can respond to STUN requests received on the SIP ports." https://lists.su.se/archive/public/yxa-devel/msg00335.html > I guess it's time to dig into the code :-) The oldest version of > Erlang that is still available is just one version newer than the one > required by the config file. Hopefully that will do. Try the following branch if git master don't work for you. https://github.com/mikma/yxa/tree/otp-r14a /Mikma _______________________________________________ Yxa-devel mailing list Yxa-devel@lists.su.se https://lists.su.se/mailman/listinfo/yxa-devel
