[Freeswitch-users] ICE STUN Binding Response

[Colin Morelli]

Hey all,

I created a bug a little while ago for an issue I was having with STUN
binding responses during ICE negotiations on re-invites -
https://freeswitch.org/jira/browse/FS-9711

I'm trying to work on the issue now (assuming others agree it's an issue),
but I was hoping to hear from the community (and the FS folks) on how it's
expected to/desired to work.

The brief gist is that it seems to be possible for FS to have a
disagreement between the remote RTP address, and the remote address it
expects to receive STUN binding requests from (more details and logs can be
found on the ticket). Assuming this doesn't end up being solely my issue (I
don't think it is but I'm not 100% confident), would you expect that FS:

1. Trust the RTP address, and only send STUN binding responses to that -
this is the current behavior, which means I just need to figure out why FS
can sometimes end up in a state where it doesn't send STUN binding
responses to the address it's receiving and sending RTP from/to.

2. Trust the STUN binding request, and update the remote RTP address to the
one that STUN bindings are received from.

If anyone has inputs/preferences, would be great to hear - a lot of this is
still somewhat new to me. Would also appreciate assistance if anyone can.

Thanks in advance,
Colin

P.S. - To the FS folks, I assumed this conversation was safe to have in the
mailing list since the bug is reported with info separately and I'm looking
for community input, but if you'd prefer this be in JIRA feel free to let
me know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20161202/c2541808/attachment.html