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

[Nabeel]

Thanks, but I'm still looking for a more direct comparison of rtpproxy vs.
TURN/ICE only based on their effectiveness, nothing else.

I know both work but I would like to know of any evidence that TURN with
two public IPs is more effective than rtpproxy alone.
On 29 Aug 2015 18:36, "Giovanni Maruzzelli" <gmaruzz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Both will work.
>
> You can check other aspects inherently to your project and implementation:
> performances, integration, etc
>
> Rttproxy, media engine and the like can give you more services related to
> the fact they are controlled by the proxy.
>
> sent from my mobile,
> Giovanni Maruzzelli
> cell: +39 347 266 56 18
> On Aug 29, 2015 7:04 PM, "Nabeel" <nabeelshikder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry previous message I sent was meant to be a quote.
>>
>> All my clients will use the same UAC which supports ICE/TURN, so that is
>> not an issue.
>>
>> I just want to know which is more effective solely on the basis of NAT
>> traversal ability.
>> On 29 Aug 2015 18:01, "Nabeel" <nabeelshikder at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150829/60f2c863/attachment.htm>