[Galene] STUN and TURN

[Galene] STUN and TURN

[Michael Ströder]

HI!

I've noticed that the README now also contains an STUN config example.

So I wonder whether using stun: and turn: URLs in the ICE config make
sense. Do the browsers prefer STUN-trickled addresses over relaying via
TURN if both are configured.

I'd like to avoid the TURN stream relaying burden for clients using a
"normal" open Internet connection at home.

Ciao, Michael.

[Galene] Re: STUN and TURN

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> So I wonder whether using stun: and turn: URLs in the ICE config make sense.

It's not useful, it will only slow down connection establishment.  Every
TURN server acts as a STUN server, if you have a TURN server it will be
used for STUN candidates.

> Do the browsers prefer STUN-trickled addresses over relaying via TURN if
> both are configured.

Yes, Rosenberg is competent ;-)  RFC 8445 Section 5.1.2.2:

   The RECOMMENDED values for type preferences are 126 for host
   candidates, 110 for peer-reflexive candidates, 100 for server-
   reflexive candidates, and 0 for relayed candidates.

("Server-reflexive" means STUN, "relayed" means TURN.)

Browsers are free to tweak the priorities, and chrome correctly sets
a slightly higher priority for Ethernet than for WiFi:

   When choosing type preferences, agents may take into account factors
   such as latency, packet loss, cost, network topology, security,
   privacy, and others.

-- Juliusz