[Serusers] STUN characteristics

Jiri Kuthan jiri at iptel.org
Fri Sep 22 03:23:13 CEST 2006


At 20:47 20/09/2006, Andres wrote:

>>This is a lot more complex than it sounds, I know, but I think if I have more
>>data to work with, I might be able to come up with a more acceptable scenario
>>than we currently employ.
>We too tried to use STUN as often as possible with all our users.  Its fine at the beginning because you can fine tune everybody when you have a small customer base.  As our network grew we found ourselves taking in more and more customer support calls from clients using STUN.  The most common problem one had to deal with was that of NO Audio with customers changing routers from simple 'cone NAT' to 'symmetric NAT' type which of course breaks STUN.  In the end we found it a lot more economical to pay for more bandwidth and use multiple RTP Proxy servers than to pay for more Tech Support people.  It has worked out beautifully.  I can't remember that last support call we ever had from somebody complaining about no audio.  It had to be more that 2 years ago.

Whereas I don't add any new information value, let me at least concur that this is the bottom line.
It is what it is which is an economic decision driven by cost incurred through some STUN unreliablity.
in the long-run, the standardization answer to lacking reliability is via ICE, but that's something
today's deployments cannot rely on yet.

-jiri


--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 




More information about the sr-users mailing list