[libnice] [nice] recommended OSS STUN/TURN server

[Klaus Kranz]

I've been using nice_agent_set_relay_info(.... , NICE_RELAY_TYPE_TURN_UDP)
in previous tests, that failed to connect.
Now I changed experimentally to NICE_RELAY_TYPE_TURN_TCP and bingo the peers
can connect now by STUN method.
Test on public IP address will show finally if it can connect as well when
only TURN is possible.
Need to wait for our sysadmins, so this test might be conducted today
afternoon. Xing fingers.

But I frankly speaking I don't understand that behavior at all.

I wonder if I am the only candidate on earth experiencing those problems.
Rgds
Klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Kranz [mailto:klaus.kranz at access-company.com]
Sent: Montag, 17. November 2014 11:10
To: 'Olivier Crête'; 'nice at lists.freedesktop.org'
Subject: RE: [libnice] [nice] recommended OSS STUN/TURN server

Dear Olivier,
I commented the line on the other peer and it turns out that now listing the
relay candidate on both sides, prevents them to finally connect using STUN.
This is what I observed last week using the other turnserver.
So back to zero.
Rgds
Klaus


-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Kranz [mailto:klaus.kranz at access-company.com]
Sent: Montag, 17. November 2014 10:38
To: 'Olivier Crête'; 'nice at lists.freedesktop.org'
Subject: RE: [libnice] [nice] recommended OSS STUN/TURN server

Dear Olivier,
I've now tried with the rfc5466-turn-server running with  --no-auth for
simplicity gives same results ( no relay candidate ).
However libnice debug showed that I have to use --fingerprint on the server
side.
But this was not enough. I still got "STUN auth error: No message integrity
attribute!" from stunagent.c  stun_agent_validate().
After commenting the line return STUN_VALIDATION_UNAUTHORIZED  it succeeds.
Nice agent compatibility is set to RFC5245 Wireshark doesn't show such a
status code. Only one is "role conflict"
Test conducted in house on 10...  with Peer clients behind 2 routers 192....
, so STUN able.
Now I need to run the server on the public to see if the relay works. ( I'll
keep you posted ).

Rgds
Klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Crête [mailto:olivier.crete at collabora.com]
Sent: Freitag, 14. November 2014 17:33
To: Klaus Kranz; nice at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [libnice] [nice] recommended OSS STUN/TURN server

Hi,

I've never tried coTurn, you may want to look at the libnice log produce
with G_MESSAGES_DEBUG=all NICE_DEBUG=all, if you can't make any sense from
them, please post them here.

Olivier

On 11/14/2014 10:22 AM, Klaus Kranz wrote:
> Dear Olivier,
> thanks a lot. I've followed the rfc5466-turn-server  which leads to
> coTurn.
> So I tried coTurn. It worked out-of-the-box for STUN but libnice
> didn't gather relay candidates.
> I could see that the TURN ALLOCATIONS went ok, but...
>
> Do you have any idea what can go wrong ?
> Rgds
> Klaus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nice [mailto:nice-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of
> Olivier Crête
> Sent: Donnerstag, 13. November 2014 17:59
> To: nice at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [libnice] [nice] recommended OSS STUN/TURN server
>
> Hi,
>
> There are 2 good open source turn servers, turnserver.org and
> rfc5466-turn-server.
>
> On 13/11/14 03:13 AM, Klaus Kranz wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> does somebody have a recommendation for an open source STUN/TURN
>> server, confirming a well functioning behaviour.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nice mailing list
>> nice at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nice
>>
>
> --
> Olivier Crête
> olivier.crete at collabora.com
> _______________________________________________
> nice mailing list
> nice at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nice
>

--
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.com

-- 
.