15 Dec
2012
15 Dec
'12
12:49 p.m.
i tried to use kamailio built-in stun server, but failed, because it
supports only binding requests. my ua tried to send it "allocate request
lifetime" request, which failed with 600 global failure response.
what is the status of kamailio's stun server? is anyone interested in
developing it further or should we obsolete the server and start using
some external server?
-- juha
15 Dec
15 Dec
1:35 p.m.
I haven't done any testing of it, but supporting STUN on the same port as SIP is a
requirement for an edge proxy supporting outbound. So I don't think it should be
obsoleted or removed.
Peter
On 15 Dec 2012, at 17:49, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
i tried to use kamailio built-in stun server, but
failed, because it
supports only binding requests. my ua tried to send it "allocate request
lifetime" request, which failed with 600 global failure response.
what is the status of kamailio's stun server? is anyone interested in
developing it further or should we obsolete the server and start using
some external server?
-- juha
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
1:43 p.m.
Peter Dunkley writes:
I haven't done any testing of it, but supporting
STUN on the same port
as SIP is a requirement for an edge proxy supporting outbound. So I
don't think it should be obsoleted or removed.
ok, in that case improving kamailio's stun server is new requirement
for getting outbound support in next version of kamailio.
-- juha
1:57 p.m.
I haven't done any testing of it, but supporting
STUN on the same port
as SIP is a requirement for an edge proxy supporting outbound. So I
don't think it should be obsoleted or removed.
peter,
my understanding is that stun server as specified in ice rfc 5245
authenticates its clients, but there does not seem to be any possibility
for the server to know the realm of the connecting client, which mean
that a single realm must be configured in the stun server.
if that is true, it is not possible that a single stun server serves
more than one domain at the same port. so does what you write in above
mean that in multi-domain sip proxy setup, kamailio must be configured
to listen at different ports for different domains (which in my opinion
is not realistic).
-- juha
3:04 p.m.
Hi Juha,
The STUN in outbound is a limited subset of STUN (Binding Request, Binding
Response, and Binding Error Response, with no attributes except
XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS). This is described in RFC 5626 section 8. I am not
expert in STUN, but as the attributes for authentication are not used for
STUN in SIP outbound, I don't think there is a multi-domain problem.
I believe this subset of requests and responses is small enough that the
current Kamailio STUN implementation should be adequate. I suspect that
the correct thing is to have STUN enabled in Kamailio for SIP use with
clients that support outbound, and a completely separate STUN server that
supports the full protocol for use with ICE.
I did some experimentation with http://turnserver.sourceforge.net/
recently for ICE/WebRTC testing, and this seems promissing.
Regards,
Peter
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
I haven't
done any testing of it, but supporting STUN on the same port
as SIP is a requirement for an edge proxy supporting outbound. So I
don't think it should be obsoleted or removed.
peter,
my understanding is that stun server as specified in ice rfc 5245
authenticates its clients, but there does not seem to be any possibility
for the server to know the realm of the connecting client, which mean
that a single realm must be configured in the stun server.
if that is true, it is not possible that a single stun server serves
more than one domain at the same port. so does what you write in above
mean that in multi-domain sip proxy setup, kamailio must be configured
to listen at different ports for different domains (which in my opinion
is not realistic).
-- juha
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
16 Dec
16 Dec
12:22 a.m.
Peter Dunkley writes:
The STUN in outbound is a limited subset of STUN
(Binding Request, Binding
Response, and Binding Error Response, with no attributes except
XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS). This is described in RFC 5626 section 8. I am not
expert in STUN, but as the attributes for authentication are not used for
STUN in SIP outbound, I don't think there is a multi-domain problem.
yes, i checked that too and in outbound rfc5626, a subset of stun is
used as a keepalive mechanism only.
I did some experimentation with
http://turnserver.sourceforge.net/
recently for ICE/WebRTC testing, and this seems promissing.
thanks for the pointer. i was testing with restund from baresip
project http://www.creytiv.com/baresip.html.
-- juha
4393
days inactive
4394
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Juha Heinanen -
Peter Dunkley