[Standards] Do we need STUN?

Thomas Charron twaffle at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 19:42:20 UTC 2007

On 3/8/07, Scott Ludwig <scottlu at google.com> wrote:
> STUN works most of the time behind a corp firewall, from our stats. In
> the cases it doesn't, Google Talk generates TCP candidates. TCP is
> less desirable than UDP for media streaming, but a connection is
> better than no connection.
> On Mar 8, 2007 11:25 AM, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/8/07, Thiago Camargo <thiago at jivesoftware.com> wrote:
> > > You're completely right. But why clients need to implements STUN? Why? If sometimes it's not necessary?
> >   Because the majority of the world isn't behind a corp firewall.  The
> > majority of the world is behind a simple NAT Linksys box in which STUN
> > solves the problem, easily, in fact.

  Yes.  When I use the phrase 'corp firewall', I'm taking about
companies whose internal machines are not merely firewalled, but
completely seperate.  They may have HTTP proxies, but no way to
directly attempt to connect to anything on the internet.

-- Thomas

More information about the Standards mailing list