Hello Ingo and all others that have helped in this thread before,
thank you for your responses, and sorry, I only got back to it today.
(See other email from today for my updated FAQ proposal.)
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:10:13 +0100
>> implement code that would only work for users that have been able
>> to properly route ports. How many would that be? Less than 1%?.
> There are frequent threads on the mailinglist about the ICE failed
> topic, and people not wanting relays.
The point is not that it's impossible to do, but:
- Jitsi doesn't support it and we say so
- We have no resources to implement support for things that require
manual port forwarding. If you want to create something that places a
custom IP address in the INVITE SDP, I guess we'll review it.
- We long wanted to change the message "ICE failed" to something like
"ICE failed and no relay found"
We aim to provide an out-of-the box
solution. Now I realize we aren't there, but contrary to Skype, we
are a client and not a complete network. Our jit.si server however
provides a relay to at least circumvent this a little. If it works
there, the network is okay. Which is the case for almost everyone.
Interesting, the same reasoning, jitsi being a client not a complete network
would let me to think independent operation behind NATs without relay are
important to be a viable solution.
Fortunately, the changes to support it (latching, INVITEs to public (STUN) IP, user
configurable ports) don't seem to be the rocket science. So maybe somebody
will implement them some day.
"Ingo Bauersachs" <email@example.com> wrote: