[Nice] Gracefull fallback, renegotiations?

[Olivier Crête]

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 19:25 +0300, mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com wrote:
> Hi,
> >On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 12:49 +0300, Kai.Vehmanen at nokia.com wrote:
> >> In theory you might want to pick a different pair than what
> >> was chosen as the best pair by standard ICE preference 
> >> algorithms. But a better way to influence pair selection
> >> is to adjust the local candidate preference values. 
> >
> >Will there be always only one socket per component/transport/af? So
> >whichever local candidate we pick doesn't matter since they'll all be
> >sending the exact same packets?
> 
> Don't you have to bind to every local interface, in order to send candidate checks properly?
> It might matter with VPN and IP migration.

Won't you bind the same socket to every interface?

That said, even if they were different sockets, would there be a way for
libnice to match the forced remote to the local socket? If not, that
would kind of suck...

-- 
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Collabora Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nice/attachments/20080703/46122058/attachment.pgp