[Nice] Gracefull fallback, renegotiations?

Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Tue May 6 07:59:50 PDT 2008

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 17:53 +0300, Kai.Vehmanen at nokia.com wrote:
> Hi,
> On 06 May 2008,  Olivier Crête wrote:
> >Well, to be able to give libnice the address on the m= line, 
> >you have to create a "non-ice" candidate which libnice won't 
> >be able to differentiate from an ice candidate and will start 
> >doing connchecks on.
> ... aa, that's a good point. So yes, some STUN checks will be 
> sent by current libnice code (between calling nice_agent_set_remote_candidates()
> and nice_nice_agent_set_selected_pair()).
> So we need to add a new function to disable ICE processing (and
> update design.txt). In practise, any sane RTP implementation
> should gracefully handle invalid RTP packets (like a STUN packet).
> But yes, this should be fixed.

What about setting the candidates directly in set_selected_pair()
instead of passing foundations (something like
set_selected_candidates() ?

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: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nice/attachments/20080506/322dcfc2/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Nice mailing list