[Standards] Do we need STUN?

Evgeniy Khramtsov xramtsov at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 13:37:00 UTC 2007

Do we really need a STUN support in Jingle implementations?
Of course, we need some methods for NAT traversal, but why this must be 
exactly STUN?
Recently I've started to develop a STUN/TURN server and found out some 
drawbacks of this protocols:

1) Lack of protocol stability.
Currently RFC3489 does not have much sense and there are exist only 
deeply drafts of 3489bis.
2) Lack of integration with XMPP services.
I don't see any methods how to authenticate XMPP-users on the STUN/TURN 
3) Complexity.
This is the main problem. I completely disagree with guys who say that 
STUN is simple.
Furthermore, I think that STUN is *unfairly* complex. I don't see the 
of a lot of things. Also, the RFC3489bis authors are trying to save the 
compatibility with it predecessor:
no doubt, there are a lot of SIP software with STUN support, but is 
there exist one for XMPP?

I just wonder if it possible to modify XEP-0065 and to adapt XEP-0176 
for this.

More information about the Standards mailing list