Re: [GnomeMeeting-devel-list] Again: STUN

[Jan Schampera <jan schampera web de>]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:51:18 +0100
Michael Rickmann <mrickma gwdg de> wrote:

> 1) Ekiga should tell you if it cannot reach a STUN server. E.g. the
> user should have a chance to recognize that stun.sipgate.de does not
> exist. Then he has the chance to correct it into stun.sipgate.net.
It could only complain, if there's no DNS entry for that STUN server.
That differs from "not reachable"

> 2) Ekiga will be a good softphone but not a service to all of its
> users. One attractiveness of "free your speech" is that the user can
> choose any SIP provider and select one for a special purpose. When he
> signs in every provider will tell the address of his STUN server. The
> user should enter that.
In general it's not of interest, from which STUN server you get your
information, as long as you get it.

> 3) I like the way the X-ten people handle the problem. They have a
> primary and a secondary STUN server in their network setup. In
> X-lite's default configuration the first server entry is empty and
> the secondary is xten.net (or is it stun.xten.net).
> I think that is a good solution for Ekiga as well. Offer two STUN
> server entries in the network setup gui, don't overload the druid but
> provide stun.ekiga.net as a fallback server.
In general I agree. Which specific implementation doesn't really
matter. But I agree in the fallback STUN server approach.

J.


-- 
"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
- J. B. Postel, master of the net.