[OpenSIPS-Devel] STUN module

[Thomas Gelf]

Razvan Pistolea wrote:
> Thx for the enthusiasm!
> The plan was to wait until Monday for an announcement but what the hell.

Sorry ;-)

>> - As far as I understood OpenSIPS' STUN module is not able
>>   to run on multiple ports (i.e. 5060 as of rfc5389 and 3478
>>   as of rfc3489), however it suggests using 3479 as secondary
>>   port (and 5060 as the default one)
>>
> You can change the secondary port(3479) to any port... say
> (3478) and then you don't have to make any change to the clients

3478 is probable not the best choice for the secondary port, but
I'll find another one :-p

> and it even helps the SIP server (not having to differentiate
> between incoming STUN/SIP messages).

I'd like to add it that additional burden, that's the most exciting
part of RFC 5389 - you can use STUN for keepalives. Did you already
reflect whether it could make sense to let nat_traversal and stun
modules somehow "talk" to each other (e.g. "client is sending stun
keepalives from socket X, therefore no SIP keepalive is required on
that socket)?

>> - Therefore: to provide RFC 5389 and 3489 support without
>>   requiring customers to reconfigure their clients, I'll remain
>>   with two STUN servers, stund and OpenSIPS?!
>>
> Yes. Until i implement rfc 5389.

Ok. So choosing primary port 3478 and secondary port 3479 to replace
stund is probably the way to go right now. Is your stun module a full
replacement for stund? Are you aware of a free software allowing to
(entirely) test their behaviour?

> It can work on port 3478 and 5060(primary_port) but you will have
> (just) a STUN rfc 3478 server.

Got it. Running on both of them (= multiple instances) isn't possible,
is it?

>> - Are there clients already making use of RFC 5389?
> I don't know.
Me too :-) Anyone else?

Cheers,
Thomas