On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Dmitry (MicroSIP) <info at microsip.org.ua> wrote: > Thanks for answer. > You are right, I have found this in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19#section-15 > I see that ICE can work via TSL, but this is not deal. > > But I can not understand this position of authors of ICE standard: > > ?"Unfortunately, many ALG are known to work poorly in these corner > ? cases. ?ICE does not try to work around broken ALGs, as this is > ? outside the scope of its functionality. ?ICE can help diagnose these > ? conditions, which often show up as a mismatch between the set of > ? candidates and the m and c lines and rtcp attributes. ?The ice- > ? mismatch attribute is used for this purpose." > > ICE can work, why not allow this? > I think many SIP providers modifies the SDP, probably for better compatibility. > > What can do? I propose to add option in pjsua, for disable address > check. I can not see problems and security issues that can be here. > Also ICE in draft currently. > > Something like this: > pjsua_media_config media_cfg; > media_cfg.ice_address_check = PJ_TRUE | PJ_FALSE; > Yeah, that could be a good idea actually. It'll make the protocol tries harder in finding a connectivity. Rather than just disabling the check, I'm thinking that we could add the default address as one of the remote candidate, so it gets checked as well. Benny
