On 2010-04-21 at 19:37 -0600, Yves Dorfsman wrote: > Phil Pennock wrote: > > On 2010-04-18 at 11:42 -0600, Yves Dorfsman wrote: > >> addresses on the public internet. I only used one, so I turned that off, > >> and > >> pointed to a public stun server (who fund those? all of them seems to be > >> aliases to an amazon EC2 node!), > > > > stun.l.google.com > > > > I'm fairly sure that's not an Amazon EC2 node. ;) > > > > I also don't know whether or not that's a publicly supported interface > > or an implementation detail, but it currently works. I'm not in a > > position to give any promises about whether it will continue to work. > > Does it? Not working for me:
Oops, non-standard port. First result from a Google search for [stun stun.l.google.com] is: http://code.google.com/p/natvpn/source/browse/trunk/stun_server_list which leads me to: % stun_client stun.l.google.com:19302 STUN client version 0.96 Primary: Open Return value is 0x000001 and on a VM on my laptop at home: % stun stun.l.google.com:19302 STUN client version 0.96 Primary: Independent Mapping, Independent Filter, random port, will hairpin Return value is 0x000002 Normal port is 3478, but that's only a SHOULD and the STUN spec (RFC 3489 -- boy did they miss an opportunity with that port/RFC numbering) mandates use of SRV for stun server discovery anyway, and the Google XMPP extensions for voice/video (Jingle) provide XML config to set stun servers. So, as I note, the above host/port is very much an implementation detail. But until it changes, if it ever changes, it's definitely not an Amazon EC2 node and should be pretty reliable. :) It's what I shove in my IM clients (pidgin, Adium) and I accept that one day I might have some awkward debugging to do, if it should move. -Phil, speaking in personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
