Alexander Boreham wrote: > Hi, > > Again, thanks for your response. > > It looks to me like you're saying SipXtapi ignores the STUN response as we > haven't yet established an RTP receiver. It sounds like we have a Catch 22 > scenario here! > > In the STUN RFC they talk about a CHANGE-REQUEST field that allows the STUN > message to be sent back to another IP address and port. Maybe we can have > this sent to the call control component? That way we also don't need to > worry about receiving STUN messages mixed in the RTP stream once it has been > established. This does sound like a big change to me so maybe it's not so > practical. > > Also, I noticed there have been some bug fixes for STUN. I've tried 9895 but > none of those changes visibly affected this problem. >
STUN bug is fixed in r9899. It was also fixed some time ago in experimental sipxtapi. Use stunserver.org with port 3478 for STUN. Jaro _______________________________________________ sipxtapi-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipxtapi-dev/
