[Standards] ICE/UDP and NAT

Pavel Simerda pavlix at pavlix.net
Wed Jul 30 19:03:41 UTC 2008

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:21:43 +0200
"Sylvain Mundialco" <sylvain at mundialco.com> wrote:

> Hi.
> Can I have more clarity on these:
> We are implementing jingle and all is going all but the configuration
> NAT/Firewall for both peer is not working. I'm thinking to use relayed
> candidate but I know that there is a way of punching hole in
> Nat/Firewall. 
> 1) Is it the possible to use the UDP firewall punching hole technique
> of waiting the NAT to map the inbound and outbound IP to allow
> comunication

This is more of a question for your network/firewall administrator, not
for XMPP people. For the XMPP part, refer to *XEP-0176: Jingle ICE-UDP
Transport Method*

> 2) when should we use relay candidate in jingle negotiation.  

You should generally avoid it.

> 3) how with jingle can we get a usable pair of candidates behind
> firewall and NAT.

I believe it's answered in (1).

> Sylvain.


Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net

More information about the Standards mailing list