[jitsi-users] Direct SIP calling?


#1

> Many thanks for explaning that jitsi still sends false (private) IP
addresses
> in SIP messages to public IP addresses.

Well, they're not "false". They're the addresses Jitsi actually listens on
and the whole nature why NAT is such a bad thing.

Yes sorry, that was too sloppy. They are of course correct in the local scope,
and possibly even valid in the remote scope.
It is also kind of correct to send one's private address to destinations
with public addresses, luckily there is the remote IP sender address that
can be used in response to such "incorrect" address information, and
ICE to help find out about the correctness of direct local pairs.

Forwarding a set of pre/configured ports should then help (and only be necessary)
in the case of specific NAT mapping without a relay.

> What about direct "jingle" calls (instead of SIP) is that possible with
ICE?

I don't know of any p2p mode for XMPP, and there is definitely none in
Jitsi.

Ok, I had only seen some programms where p2p communication "just worked"
out of the box that claim to use Zeroconf/Avahi to create the contact list (e.g. Pidgin).

Thanks again for providing the crucial info about the missing NAT + port forwarding
support in jitsi's SIP implementation (not transmitting public in case of private local IP,
and not responding to public sender IP in case of private received IP without ICE).
Hopefully this can be added to the FAQ.

But it seems if the jingle port configuration could be made available in the preferences
(similar to SIP port), proper port forwarding for XMPP calls may possible and quite easy.


#2

I used Jitsi over VPN with direct peer to peer sip and worked.
Only issue i encountered is that for some reason Jitsi listens only on ipv6
by default if both ipv6 and ipv4 are enabled. Which is wrong behavior.
I had to

ยทยทยท

> > Many thanks for explaning that jitsi still sends false (private) IP
> addresses
> > in SIP messages to public IP addresses.
>
> Well, they're not "false". They're the addresses Jitsi actually listens
on
> and the whole nature why NAT is such a bad thing.

Yes sorry, that was too sloppy. They are of course correct in the local
scope,
and possibly even valid in the remote scope.
It is also kind of correct to send one's private address to destinations
with public addresses, luckily there is the remote IP sender address that
can be used in response to such "incorrect" address information, and
ICE to help find out about the correctness of direct local pairs.

Forwarding a set of pre/configured ports should then help (and only be
necessary)
in the case of specific NAT mapping without a relay.

> > What about direct "jingle" calls (instead of SIP) is that possible with
> ICE?
>
> I don't know of any p2p mode for XMPP, and there is definitely none in
> Jitsi.

Ok, I had only seen some programms where p2p communication "just worked"
out of the box that claim to use Zeroconf/Avahi to create the contact list
(e.g. Pidgin).

Thanks again for providing the crucial info about the missing NAT + port
forwarding
support in jitsi's SIP implementation (not transmitting public in case of
private local IP,
and not responding to public sender IP in case of private received IP
without ICE).
Hopefully this can be added to the FAQ.

But it seems if the jingle port configuration could be made available in
the preferences
(similar to SIP port), proper port forwarding for XMPP calls may possible
and quite easy.

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/users