Re: [reSIProcate] testing ice4j against reTurn
On 08/01/12 20:12, Scott Godin wrote:
> Good point. Right now reTurn requires you to use an actual IP address
> and not 0.0.0.0. We should modify the program to fail to start if
> in_addrany is specified on the command line.
The implementation seems quite good and it is working, but the config
stuff is a little unfinished - I was curious about whether you are
already working on some of those final touches, or hoping other people
will step in?
I may have a use for running it in a couple of places and I don't mind
tweaking some of these things as I go
Also, I noticed the other outstanding issues listed in the README, I
think it would be good to capture stuff (whether it is bugs or just
things that are unfinished) in Bugzilla, then people can annotate things
or even note the things they are working on
>
> Scott
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I've just run the ice4j samples:
>
> ant run-sample
>
> against reTurn from resiprocate
>
> It appears to run fine, except when I initially started up reTurn with
> no command line arguments
>
> - It bound on 0.0.0.0
> - The host is multi-homed, (multiple public IPs)
> - it would receive on one IP and the source address of every response
> packet was the other IP
> - consequently, none of the response packets went through the NAT to
> the UA
> - there is no clue what is going wrong until you look at it with a
> packet sniffer
>
> When I bind explicitly to one of the addresses, it works fine
>
> Should it detect when it is running on a multi-homed host and exercise
> some control over the source IP of response packets?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
>