[OpenSIPS-Users] rtpproxy vs. STUN/TURN/ICE

[Nabeel]

That said, only clients that supports turn will use it, check your clients
features.

Rtpproxy, mediaengine, and the like do not rely on clients support, they
are.enforced by sip proxy manipulation of sdp.
On 29 Aug 2015 17:02, "Giovanni Maruzzelli" <gmaruzz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stun/turn are the only methods used by webrtc peers, and because are used
> through ICE they're very effective.
>
> You can check coturn for an advanced implementation.
>
> That said, only clients that supports turn will use it, check your clients
> features.
>
> Rtpproxy, mediaengine, and the like do not rely on clients support, they
> are.enforced by sip proxy manipulation of sdp.
>
> So, actually they (turn and rtpproxy) are not alternative to each other,
> but complementary.
> Eg: your service can offer both technologies at the same time, clients
> choose what to do.
>
> -giovanni
>
> sent from my mobile,
> Giovanni Maruzzelli
> cell: +39 347 266 56 18
> On Aug 29, 2015 5:48 PM, "Nabeel" <nabeelshikder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to know which is more effective for NAT traversal, rtpproxy
>> or STUN/TURN/ICE implementation.
>>
>> I heard that TURN server with one public IP can function equivalent to
>> rtpproxy, and TURN server with two public IPs is more effective than
>> rtpproxy.
>>
>> Is that true?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150829/d6bf13a9/attachment.htm>