[sr-dev] WebSockets and NAT

[Jeremy Jongepier]

On 11/14/2012 11:04 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 14 nov 2012 kl. 10:55 skrev Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley at crocodile-rcs.com>:
>
>> No.  The RTP/SAVPF media profile mandated by WebRTC is not supported by most gateways or servers.
>>
>> At this point in time media must go directly between clients that support this profile.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> reading about ICE. No way it could be integrated like rtpproxy?
>>>
> The idea with ICE, if you read about it, is to have a TURN server, which eliminates the use of the RTP proxy.
> ICE pushes the responsibility of NAT traversal to the client, so ICE done right means that the client
> talks with a turn server (like a RTPproxy++) and reserves support, much like Kamailio today asks the
> RTP proxy for media ports.
>

Hello Olle,


Got that, thanks.

> The RTPproxy software could of course be made into a turn server with some code and a lot of
> energy, coming from soda drinks and cookies... :-)
>
> If you have issues with the client handling this by itself, you can force media relays into the ICE offer
> on the server side, by manipulating the SDP. This of course only works when there's no protection like
> an electronic signature on the SDP.
>
> If you want to learn more about ICE, please visit my presentation on slideshare:
> http://www.slideshare.net/oej/sip-2012-ice-nat-traversal-for-media
>

Will do, thanks for the link.

Regards,

Jeremy

> Cheers,
> /O
>
> ------
>
> --
> * Olle E. Johansson - oej at edvina.net
> * Kamailio & SIP Masterclass Miami FL December 2012
> * http://edvina.net/training/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>