4 ms·
> Notably, it is a must for VoIP Wouldn't making STUN work be a better alternative?
by ShroudedNight 6y ago
> Notably, it is a must for VoIP
Wouldn't making STUN work be a better alternative?
- rubatuga 6y agoYes, it’s a feature supported by many VOIP clients, and this comments section is filled with UPnP apologists
- my123 6y agoAs I said, "without going through a relay". And TURN is one of those relays. (I host a STUN and TURN relay myself, because I had to for my personal VoIP server for enough people to be able to connect on it. Downside is more use of bandwidth.) edit: replaced STUN with TURN where appropriate, I did confuse both as they were provided as a single package.
- daniellarusso 6y agoWhat STUN relay software do you use, or is it a hardware device?
- my123 6y agoI use https://github.com/coturn/coturn https://github.com/coturn/coturn, provided as the coturn package on Ubuntu 20.04.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rubatuga 6y agoSTUN is not a relay.
- dasyatidprime 6y agoSTUN is not a relay, but TURN is, and STUN/TURN is a common combo for when STUN doesn't manage to holepunch reliably, falling back to the relay when the direct connection fails. What's also true, and what I think the GP was trying to get at, is that STUN requires an external coordination server. UPnP (I think—I am far less familiar with it) does not, because in UPnP you're negotiating the holepunching with the local router directly, whereas STUN is sort of using a loophole.
- my123 6y agoWith TURN, all the traffic to the clients is routed through the TURN server indeed. That makes hosting a discussions server more traffic-heavy than otherwise... (and it turns out that the server software that I use implements TURN and STUN in the same daemon)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 6y agoSTUN is a workaround and doesn't support all types of NAT.