Hi R?gis, I think 539 is about a different thing and as of now it doesn't do anything that you mentioned. :) The primary motivation behind 539 is to improve NAT traversal and battery life for handsets. I kind of "forgot" that we still have pending issues as you mentioned, which is now become implementable with the new media transport approach. The good news is, we can always add this feature later without breaking compatibility, so I just added https://trac.pjsip.org/repos/ticket/1412 for this (to be implemented somewhere in 2.x). Fingers crossed hopefully it will make it. Best regards, Benny 2011/10/31 R?gis Montoya <r3gis.3r at gmail.com> > Hi, > > I'm switching to pjsip-2.0 and I'm wondering something about the way media > transport is created. > My question is linked to ticket 539, and maybe what I'll ask for is > already planned :). > > It sounds that there is now already an option to setup per account media > transport settings. That's great and it could solve an issue raised by many > users that expect to be able to use a sip server in their LAN at the same > time than a public sip server. > > However, regarding source code, I'm wondering if it will go fine with the > STUN setting. > As far as I can understand from the code, if there is stun server > configured in pjsua_var, it will be used first. Then, if no stun server are > set, it will use the public_addr from account (and then try to fallback to > bound_addr). > > The point is that using this approach, in the use case you don't want an > account to use the stun server useful for other accounts, you'll not be > able to send the public_addr in the neg and it will still use the address > resolved by the stun server. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just my first > impression by reading source code. > > I guess, that in one way this approach can reply to another use case (if > you don't want the public_addr to have a bigger priority than stun server). > But I think that it would be nice to have either : > > * One option in account media transport to tell that we don't want to use > STUN for this transport > -- OR (would be much more powerful I think) -- > * A stun server cfg per media transport (or maybe per transport). And a > way to say that we'd like to use the global stun server config (by default > to true). > > Is that planned, or is there already a way to do that with current > pjsip-2.0 alpha release? > > Thx in advance, > R?gis > > ______________________________**_________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/**mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.**pjsip.org<http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20111101/20243aa5/attachment.html>
