On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Sa?l Ibarra Corretg? <saul at ag-projects.com> wrote: >> 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. > I mean if callee receives an INVITE with mismatched c= line, it can just add this c= address as a new *remote* candidate. Caller doesn't need to be aware of it, as this will be handled by the triggered check . But you're right, the 200/OK response may be mangled by the server too, which would upset the caller, so for best results, both agents need to implement this workaround. Benny
