Re: [Turnserver-devel] Confusion on Turn Protocol and TurnServer

[Sumit G. <gam...@gm...>]

Hello,

Thanks for your replies. So if I understand correctly TurnServer doesn't
have ICE implementation. Also, I understand that we cannot use any on
Technique for communication, and we have to HIT and try from Direct IP
connection to Stun or TURN etc. 
Do anyone of you know a Library that already does this, I mean I have seen
that likes of Bitorrent and Skype or Yahoo or MSN works from almost all
computer without any setting on their NAT router[symmetric NAT]. I have
Symmetric NAT at my development place. I understand Yahoo/Skype/MSN does it
well, but I wonder how Bitorrent goes fine, as they cannot use TURN for
obvious reason as otherwise they won't be Torrents if they rely. 

Maybe I miss a concept here again. But I really miss TurnServer
implementation as my project need is not to RELAY through Server as client
is not willing to pay for server bandwidth.

With Regards,
Sumit Gupta

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Karneges [mailto:ju...@af...] 
Sent: 06 April 2010 22:00
To: tur...@li...; seb...@cp...
Cc: Sumit Gupta
Subject: Re: [Turnserver-devel] Confusion on Turn Protocol and TurnServer

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 08:52:13 Sebastien Vincent wrote:
> Sumit Gupta a écrit :
> > Also now I understand that ICE is what does the direct connection and
> > if this fails then only we should go for TURN technique of relay. So
> > my Question is :
> >
> > 1. My understand about TURN is right ?
>
> Yes. TURN is used only at last resort if both peers cannot have a P2P
> connection (like for example when they are behind a symmetrical
> NAT/firewall).

Small clarification: Fallback to TURN is part of ICE.  Sumit writes, "ICE is

what does the direct connection and if this fails then we should go for 
TURN", but actually ICE encapsulates both direct (STUN) and relayed (TURN) 
mechanisms into a single protocol.  If ICE fails there is no fallback. ;)

-Justin