[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted
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. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards