[SR-Users] Rtpengine vs. TURN?

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Mon Jul 14 15:18:20 CEST 2014


Hello,

On 12/07/14 19:55, Peter Villeneuve wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On my server, I have the option of using either Rtpengine for NAT 
> traversal or pure TURN without rtpengine.
> Rtpengine has the obvious plus that it only needs 1 public IP, while 
> TURN (with STUN) will need 2 public IPs, although that's not a problem 
> in my case.
>
> Having said that, I'd like to take advantage of the huge experience 
> that users of this list have in real world deployments. in your 
> experience, which option is more reliable in a real world deployment?
>
TURN is a more standard way, but it requires support in the client 
implementation and not many of the (rather old) sip hardphones don't 
support that.

A RTP relay (like rtpengine, rtpproxy) is server only solution, not 
requiring anything in the client side. On the other hand is an exposure 
to less privacy if you don't encrypt the rtp (just because the server 
controls where to send media).

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda




More information about the sr-users mailing list