| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.midcom |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi Justin,
I noticed the same behaviour. You (and anyone else) can use our beta server if they like, available at stun01.newkinetics.com If you get any problems with it email me directly at [email protected]. It's just going through testing right now, and at present doesn't support the TLS part of the spec (, to be implemented in the next month or so).
Hope this helps,
Les
_--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:17:05 -0500
> From: "Justin Uberti" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Organization: America Online
> Subject: [midcom] Reference STUN servers?
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been testing my STUN client library against the two public STUN
> servers I know of, stun01.sipphone.com, and larry.gloo.net. However, I
> am not getting the results I expect - when I send a binding request to
> the server and get back a CHANGED-ADDRESS, and then send a second
> binding request to the CHANGED-ADDRESS, the servers reply to the binding
> request from a different port (i.e. not the one from the
> CHANGED-ADDRESS). I am not setting any CHANGE-REQUEST flags.
>
> ex:
> sending request to stun01.sipphone.com (69.0.208.27:3478)
> received reply from 609.0.208.27:3478
> source address = 69.0.208.27:3478
> changed address = 69.0.209.22:3479
>
> sending request to 69.0.209.22:3479
> received reply from 69.0.209.22:3478 <----------- BAD
> source address = 69.0.209.22:3479
> changed address = 69.0.209.27:3478
>
> I assume this is not the correct behavior, as it causes the NAT
> detection flow proposed in the STUN RFC to detect port-restricted-cone
> NATs as symmetric NATs. Does anyone know of any running 'reference'
> servers that are known to behave correctly?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Justin Uberti
>
>