Re: Reference STUN servers?

The best list to get this fixed would probably be email to [email protected].

Can you send me an ethereal dump with the message you send and the response.
I will see if I can get it fixed on the larry.gloo.net server - I don't
think this should be happening.

Cullen


On 11/18/03 10:17 AM, "Justin Uberti" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>