You are completely right in your points Nicolas. The question now is, why not have a simple IP querying on XMPP Server?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Nicolas Vérité <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
