On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 14:22, thiagoc <[email protected]> wrote: > This is indeed a trivial XEP
Maybe too trivial? ;-) I wouldn't say naive... ;-) >, for Audio, it can help know if the > client is behind a NAT, yes. I would rather say it might help. The chances it helps are quite low as I understand it now. Do we want that overhead for just adding a few chances? Please tell me if I am pessimistic ;-) > Does it says it is the same NAT to be > used when user places a Voice Call over UDP? Absolutely not. But I'm > quite convinced that it can give hints. > > But I still see a point on it, which is when we may have deployment of > XMPP Servers, which can have provide Hints about NAT, without STUN > requirement. (Yes, we all know STUN is more reliable for UDP). > The goal for me is not to have the retrieve IP as Jingle Candidate, > but how will I describe my local address type. This is specially > useful for gateway between Jingle and SIP for instance. Where u can > have a hint, that the call should be proxies as the client knows for > sure he is behind a NAT. (Considering 99% of all SIP deployments does > not support ICE properly) > > Unfortunately we still need to think about SIP deployment compatibility. STUN? (joking... ;-) ) -- Nicolas Vérité - ProcessOne http://process-one.net Mobile: +33 6 20 88 63 04
