Hi, On Sep 22, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Benny Prijono wrote: > 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. > Looks to me that this can only work if both ends implement this workaround. Benny, even if you add your own address as a candidate chances are the server replaced the c line with some relay server IP address, which you don't know in advance. When we tried to solve this, we did it in the server, because it's the one mangling the packets, you can't know what the server will do AFAIK. Regards, -- Sa?l Ibarra Corretg? AG Projects
