[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: STUN Server Discovery forJingle
matt at jivesoftware.com
Sat Mar 24 23:26:40 UTC 2007
* Shouldn't the port value be optional? STUN typically operates at a
well-known port of 3478. If no port is specified, it would be a good
idea for the client to check DNS SRV for the host first, then use the
default port if that fails. From
"STUN may use DNS SRV records to find STUN servers attached to a domain.
The service name is _stun._udp or _stun._tcp"
* Should we run a public STUN server at xmpp.org?
Also, what do you think of making this a more generic public address
discovery XEP rather than specific to STUN? When an XMPP server is
connected to the public internet, it will obviously already know your
public IP address. That feature combined with STUN makes for a very easy
way to gather a complete candidate list. I'm pretty sure Thiago sent you
a private email with some specific protocol syntax ideas about this.
Finally, a more detailed discussion of why public address discovery is
needed for media exchanges might make this XEP more accessible to
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org
> [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of XMPP
> Extensions Editor
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 3:18 PM
> To: standards at xmpp.org
> Subject: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: STUN Server
> Discovery forJingle
> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> Title: STUN Server Discovery for Jingle
> Abstract: This document specifies methods for discovering
> STUN servers for use in negotiation of certain Jingle
> transport methods.
> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/stun-discovery.html
> The XMPP Council will decide within 7 days (or at its next
> meeting) whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.
More information about the Standards