[h323plus] [Openh323gk-users] Direct Media andH.460.18/.19/.23/.24/24a
s.horne at packetizer.com
Tue Oct 20 19:15:17 EDT 2009
The STUN entries in the gatekeeper INI can be multiple entries such as
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.
From: h323plus-bounces at lists.packetizer.com
[mailto:h323plus-bounces at lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Frenkel
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2009 6:16 AM
To: GNU Gatekeeper Users
Cc: h323plus at lists.packetizer.com
Subject: Re: [h323plus] [Openh323gk-users] Direct Media
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Simon Horne <s.horne at 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:
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
BTW: Just a thought that it would be great if GnuGK integrates STUN server
in itself, using the open source STUN server code.
More information about the h323plus