[Standards] NEW: XEP-0279 (Server IP Check)

thiagoc barata7 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 12 14:27:39 UTC 2010

You are completely right in your points Nicolas.

The question now is, why not have a simple IP querying on XMPP Server?

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Nicolas Vérité
<nicolas.verite at process-one.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 14:22, thiagoc <barata7 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is indeed a trivial XEP
> Maybe too trivial? ;-) I wouldn't say naive... ;-)
>>, for Audio, it can help know if the
>> client is behind a NAT, yes.
> I would rather say it might help. The chances it helps are quite low
> as I understand it now. Do we want that overhead for just adding a few
> chances? Please tell me if I am pessimistic ;-)
>> Does it says it is the same NAT to be
>> used when user places a Voice Call over UDP? Absolutely not. But I'm
>> quite convinced that it can give hints.
>> But I still see a point on it, which is when we may have deployment of
>> XMPP Servers, which can have provide Hints about NAT, without STUN
>> requirement. (Yes, we all know STUN is more reliable for UDP).
>> The goal for me is not to have the retrieve IP as Jingle Candidate,
>> but how will I describe my local address type. This is specially
>> useful for gateway between Jingle and SIP for instance. Where u can
>> have a hint, that the call should be proxies as the client knows for
>> sure he is behind a NAT. (Considering 99% of all SIP deployments does
>> not support ICE properly)
>> Unfortunately we still need to think about SIP deployment compatibility.
> STUN? (joking... ;-) )
> --
> Nicolas Vérité - ProcessOne
> http://process-one.net
> Mobile: +33 6 20 88 63 04

More information about the Standards mailing list