[reSIProcate] testing ice4j against reTurn

[Scott Godin]

Hi Daniel,

Glad to hear it is working good for you.  You are right about the state of
the config framework - I'd like to see a framework that reads settings from
a text based name/value pair configuration file, similar to what is used in
the ichat-gw project under the apps directory.

I'm not working on any reTurn changes at the moment and I'm open to anyone
stepping in that can improve things.  : )

I'm pretty bad a checking or doing anything with Bugzilla at this point -
but I agree that it's a good tool to move forward with.  Another option is
to markup and edit the wiki page.

Regards,
Scott

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.com.au> wrote:

>
>
> 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 at pocock.com.au
> > <mailto:daniel at pocock.com.au>> 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 at resiprocate.org
> >     <mailto:resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org>
> >     https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20120108/36d5140c/attachment.htm>