[Standards] Jingle: UDP relays

Thiago Camargo thiago at jivesoftware.com
Thu Aug 9 18:01:08 UTC 2007

UDP Relays are just simple UDP routers.
So you can bind Ports and IPs to the clients from your XMPP servers.
Clients don't need to negotiate directly with Relay Servers(TURN for instance).
XMPP Servers can negotiate and allocate the tunnel to be used by the client.

Check these drafts:



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org>
To: "XMPP Extension Discussion List" <standards at xmpp.org>
Sent: Quinta-feira, 9 de Agosto de 2007 14h24min04s (GMT-0300) America/Sao_Paulo
Subject: Re: [Standards] Jingle: UDP relays

Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> At the recent XMPP devcon, I talked a bit with Thiago Camargo about NAT
>> traversal and media relays. There are really two separate issues here:
>> 1. Finding and using STUN servers for NAT traversal. This is discussed
>> in XEP-0215.
> New STUNbis doesn't define "STUN servers". Currently STUNbis is a low
> level protocol which you can use in other protocols such as ICE and TURN.


I wonder how long before rfc3489bis is widely implemented. :)

>> However, as Rémi Denis-Courmont has pointed out [2] on the
>> IETF's BEHAVE list, it is not necessary for the relay to be a TURN
>> server. It's great if the relay is a TURN server, but it could be
>> something else -- and the important point is that for the purposes of
>> media relaying it doesn't really matter to the Jingle client whether the
>> relay does TURN or something simpler.
> I can't agree :) Why do we need a zoo of relay servers? What is it for?

Who said anything about a zoo? Thiago mentioned that there's no real
need for the relay server to be a TURN server, and at least some people
on the BEHAVE list (and elsewhere) seem to agree. But I'll let Thiago
explain the reasoning more fully.

BTW, can you recommend a good open-source a codebase that can be used to
run a STUN server and/or TURN relay?


More information about the Standards mailing list