[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Feb 5 23:31:17 UTC 2007


Matt Tucker wrote:

> Anyway, XEP-0065 type proxies should work well for things like Jingle
> file transfers. However, it's not the best approach for voice proxying.
> I actually researched this a lot before (relunctantly) reaching that
> conclusion. Voice/video generally always uses UDP for speed and because
> it's ok to drop some packets. There is a UDP mode for SOCKS5, which is
> even discussed in the XEP. However, that's a foreign concept in the
> voice world. 

That = ?

> UDP media proxies basically always use a port range -- so,
> each proxy connection uses two unique ports (one for each host using the
> proxy). This type of proxy doesn't really contain much logic -- it just
> opens the ports when told to, then routes traffic between them. That's
> good for proxy implementors, and for clients which don't need to
> understand anything extra about the proxy, like the SOCS5 protocol.
> 
> I dislike having so many possible paths -- simple TCP proxy (XEP-0065),
> simple UDP proxy (discussed above), plus ICE. However, it seems like the
> best option at the moment? 

Hmm. It's always nice to think that there is one true path, but in the 
end perhaps the flexible transport + media approach in Jingle will solve 
more problems for us. As long as it doesn't *create* more problems. :-)

/psa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070205/eff1b968/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list