[Standards] Do we need STUN?

Dafydd Harries dafydd.harries at collabora.co.uk
Thu Mar 8 20:00:20 UTC 2007


Ar 08/03/2007 am 13:43, ysgrifennodd Matt Tucker:
> Rachel and all,
> 
> > But the debate, as far as I can 
> > tell, should be about / that/ -- about what the state of XMPP 
> > stream initiation is -- not about whether or not Jingle 
> > should use STUN and ICE.  Those are part of firewall/NAT 
> > traversal, and the entire point of Jingle is that it 
> > negotiates streams that traverse a firewall or NAT.
> 
> I think the "debate" is getting a bit confused. ICE is a set of
> techniques to do NAT traversal. It uses STUN for public address/NAT
> discovery and TURN when media proxies are required. What we're currently
> experimenting with is a pretty simple derivation:
> 
> 1) Use the same ICE techniques for NAT traversal.
> 2) As an alternative to STUN, try to get network address info via XMPP
> first (since you already have a connection to your XMPP server). Imagine
> the following (very simplfied and using fake packet extension values,
> etc):
> 
> <iq type="get" from="user at server.com" to="server.com">
>   <ipcheck/>
> </iq>
> 
> <iq type="result" to="user at server.com" from="server.com">
>  <ipcheck>
>     <address>204.122.135.52</address>
>  </ipcheck>
> </iq>

This won't work if your Jabber server is on the local network. It will see you
connecting from a (non-routable) local network address.

-- 
Dafydd



More information about the Standards mailing list