From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=irif.fr (client-ip=2001:660:3301:8000::1:2; helo=korolev.univ-paris7.fr; envelope-from=jch@irif.fr; receiver=) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F13B17C7837 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:41:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 108Gf5xX025028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:41:05 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 108Gf5uW005074; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:41:05 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DCBF2C09; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:41:05 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 2jkgqwfq_a22; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:41:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26218F2C04; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 17:41:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 17:41:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87eeiv755r.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Michael =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Str=F6der?= In-Reply-To: <6f88f2e0-7b06-953d-ed8b-53481381a0f0@stroeder.com> References: <6f88f2e0-7b06-953d-ed8b-53481381a0f0@stroeder.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.1 Mule/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Fri, 08 Jan 2021 17:41:05 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Fri, 08 Jan 2021 17:41:05 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5FF88B21.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5FF88B21.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5FF88B21.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5FF88B21.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5FF88B21.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5FF88B21.002 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Message-ID-Hash: ZNR46DOUZIFDK3XMIMCMCN5CKE2BWJZT X-Message-ID-Hash: ZNR46DOUZIFDK3XMIMCMCN5CKE2BWJZT X-MailFrom: jch@irif.fr X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header CC: "galene@lists.galene.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.2 Precedence: list Subject: [Galene] Re: STUN and TURN List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Gal=C3=A8ne_videoconferencing_server_discussion_list?= Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > 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