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."

> 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.


Yxa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to