[Nice] SIP forking?

[mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com]

Hi, 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nice-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org 
>[mailto:nice-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of ext 
>Rémi Denis-Courmont
>Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:26 PM
>To: nice at lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: Re: [Nice] SIP forking?
>
>> I guess one would have to set more than one set of remote 
>candidates and
>> do connectivity checks with them before selecting the set 
>that will be
>> picked?
>
>Yeah. In theory. This gets really nasty, though. As far as I 
>can tell, you 
>would need to map incoming STUN connectivity checks to forked 
>branch based 
>solely on the USERNAME, since the source IP/port might not 
>even match any 
>known remote candidate. And then you duplicate the role 
>handling state, the 
>timers, everything...

In fact, this may be required even in the non-forked case, because you may start getting connchecks before you learn any remote candidates through signaling, and you MUST respond and keep state for the pairs thus discovered.

-- 
  Mikhail