<p dir="ltr">Stun/turn are the only methods used by webrtc peers, and because are used through ICE they're very effective.</p>
<p dir="ltr">You can check coturn for an advanced implementation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, only clients that supports turn will use it, check your clients features.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Rtpproxy, mediaengine, and the like do not rely on clients support, they are.enforced by sip proxy manipulation of sdp.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So, actually they (turn and rtpproxy) are not alternative to each other, but complementary.<br>
Eg: your service can offer both technologies at the same time, clients choose what to do.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-giovanni<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from my mobile,<br>
Giovanni Maruzzelli<br>
cell: +39 347 266 56 18</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2015 5:48 PM, "Nabeel" <<a href="mailto:nabeelshikder@gmail.com">nabeelshikder@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hi, </p>
<p dir="ltr">I would like to know which is more effective for NAT traversal, rtpproxy or STUN/TURN/ICE implementation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Is that true? </p>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org">Users@lists.opensips.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>