[Serusers] STUN server

[Ladislav Andel]

sorry I just read your post you sent an hour ago so ignore my last
message, thanks.

Lada


>> > > > > > Make sure you are not behind a Symmetric NAT. If so, you're
>> > > > > > dead. STUN does not work with Symmetric NAT.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > If a UA is behind Symmetric NAT, and
>> > > > > UA use STUN, and
>> > > > > SER have [RTP/Media]Proxy to handle Symmetric NAT,
>> > > > > this UA should be fine, right?
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, but, if UA is behind symmetric NAT, I would not
>> > > > configure STUN to it. I'd just led mediaproxy solve the problem.
>> > >
>> > > But if you have 100 clients,
>> > > it would be hard to put all clients in one group.
>> >
>> > LA> Good point !
>> > 
>> > LA> Yes, it is true. If stun can not solve the nat problem, 
>> > media proxy 
>> > LA> should fix it with no trouble at all.
>> > 

>> If there is no symmetric NAT and I have installed STUN and 
>> Mediaproxy on my server. Which one will have higher priority 
>> to handle this call session? Is it always STUN? Of course if 
>> I don't need to pass the call to PSTN gateway. Just IP-phone 
>> to IP-phone. Can you set the priority in ser.cfg? and how?

LA> It is not a matter of priorities. It depends on how you get your
LA> mediaproxy configured. You need to be aware that nated clients should
LA> use the media proxy, because of the nat problem. But, if your client can
LA> find ( using stun for example ) his public ip/port, then, from
LA> mediaproxy point of view, this client is not nated, and so, it needs not
LA> treatment ( no fixing from part of media proxy ).

LA> You can always do this: Get every traffic proxied along mediaproxy. But,
LA> if clients can talk to each other being able to bypass mediaproxy, why
LA> should you proxy your communications ???

LA> Hope to be clear

LA> Regards,

LA> Lucas