[Standards] updated STUN discovery proposal

Unnikrishnan V ukv1977 at gmail.com
Wed May 2 18:08:28 UTC 2007

There are more protocols than stun and stun-relay to help  us to solve the
NAT traversal issue ( RSIP,UPNP ).

do we need to add XMPP server to address this space also or do we
concentrate on the
im/voip space more and intagrate well with these specialists to solve the
nat traversal issue.

its  choice time :-)

Realm Specific IP: Framework
RFC 3102.

Realm Specific IP: Protocol Specification
RFC 3103.

RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec
RFC 3104.


On 5/2/07, Evgeniy Khramtsov <xramtsov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre пишет:
> > Well, we can't "demand" that STUN servers share private keys with XMPP
> > servers either. :)
> True, we can't demand anything from STUN server developers. Actually,
> the easiest solution is just to implement STUN/TURN support in the XMPP
> server and forget about all these interactions :)
> >
> >> Thus, we can use a JID as a USERNAME and the Private Key as an
> >> "anotherprivatekey" in the example above. Then we can transfer
> >> computed password to the client in the disco/pubsub stanza.
> >
> >
> > So in that case, the XMPP server hands out the same password to every
> > client?
> >
> No. The password is the sha1(USERNAME, privatekey) so it differs for all
> clients.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070502/712382c3/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list