Marcus
The STUN entries in the gatekeeper INI can be multiple entries such as H46023STUN=stun.site1.net,stun.site2.net,stun.site3.net
However at the moment GnuGk will only assign one per network segment so if you have 2 networks connected to the gatekeeper then it will assign one (auto-detect) for each network (and ignore the rest). Now the H.460.23 standard only allows the transmission of one address for STUN (ok shoot me! :)). That does not mean that the gatekeeper can select from a list (not implemented) or send a DNS SRV address (_stun._udp) to furnish the endpoint with a range of STUN servers to test with (not implemented in h323plus). Both can be implemented. I will certainly do the later in h323plus. There is no reason the gatekeeper can't do a database dip or load balance when assigning STUN server or some other mechanism.
Whether a STUN server in integrated into GnuGk is a decision for Jan.
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: h323plus-bounces@lists.packetizer.com [mailto:h323plus-bounces@lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Frenkel Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2009 6:16 AM To: GNU Gatekeeper Users Cc: h323plus@lists.packetizer.com Subject: Re: [h323plus] [Openh323gk-users] Direct Media andH.460.18/.19/.23/.24/24a
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Simon Horne s.horne@packetizer.com wrote:
Yes you need 2 network cards if you run a stun server on the same machine as GnuGK. If the gatekeeper is on the internet then you can use an existing public STUN server and do not need to install one.
In order to take more control over the uptime of the STUN servers, can we just place a number of public STUN servers in the variable: H46023STUN=stun.site1.net,stun.site2.net,stun.site3.net,stun.site4.net,stun. site5.net I assume that h323plus based endpoint, like the simpleh323 one, will receive the full list and will try another STUN server if previous one fails to connect.
BTW: Just a thought that it would be great if GnuGK integrates STUN server in itself, using the open source STUN server code.
Marcus