Hi,
short version: you do not need to change or update anything on the server side to get ICE support working.
In more details: First of all ICE is still a draft, and no end in sight yet. Secondly, good luck in finding two interoperable UA with ICE support! :-) UA's with ICE support will advertise all their possible IP addresses in the SDP. As long as the proxies do not change theses additional addresses, but only the address in the m-line everything works fine and transparent. And I think (and hope) that the current nathelper modules only touch the m-line and no other IP addresses in the SDP. When the other UA sees the additional addresses in SDP, it will probe these addresses. The address which answers first will be used for media. And normally a local address should always be faster then any address which goes through the Internet or even relayed (like with an RTP proxy). What you are probably thinking of is, that an UA with ICE support could also advertise its IP address and port of the RTP proxy, but this is then called TURN. And I think that is even more far away from becoming a standard, besides that their are AFAIK no UA's or TURN servers available yet.
Hope this helps Nils
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 16:36, Christophe Irles wrote:
Hi,
As I'm a newbie on this subject, I'm wondering how two SIP devices with ICE compatibility will interact with a (open)SER+Mediaproxy implementation since ICE implementation could permit to avoid RTP flow on the (open)SER server.
Is there any update to do on the conf file on the (open)SER ? Since they are ICE compatible, the SIP flow (signalization) will be analysed by this two devices in order to create a direct RTP flow ? Or is it because i know on the (open)SER side that this devices are ICE compatible I send a special SIP message ? In fact I want to know if a server update is necessary or if it's "free" to have this great feature. :)
Thanks, Christophe
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers