On 12/16/2014 03:57 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Look, James, for a guy that had no clue about TURN, and insisted udp was all that was needed to bust through firewalls and NAT, and further insisted that there would be no need of a third party to route peer to peer when both peers were behind NAT or a firewall, I don't think you are the right person to lecture me about the internet and how basic routing works. It doesn't matter whether its nat or a firewall. There will always be a need for a man in the middle when both ends are behind either of those.
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I have never said what you claim. My point has always been that STUN and TURN are necessary to get around NAT. There is a lot of networking in this world that does not use NAT. For example, my firewall uses NAT for IPv4, because I have to share one IPv4 address among several devices. On the other hand, every IPv6 capable device on my network, including smart phone and tablet, has a public IPv6 address and is configured in the DNS service I use, so, as long as I have IPv6 available, I can directly access those devices without having to use NAT. In the work examples I mentioned, the VoIP was carried between sites via IPSec VPN, so again, NAT is not used, which means STUN was not needed. This is a key point you keep missing or ignoring, without NAT, you don't need hacks like STUN or TURN. I also said with WebRTC that a server is involved at the start of the connection, just as with SIP, but is not needed beyond that initial setup. What is so hard to understand about that? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org