Questions Regarding ICE And STUN With Asterisk

Home » Asterisk Users » Questions Regarding ICE And STUN With Asterisk
Asterisk Users 1 Comment

Hi everyone

I would like to get some help and clarification from the experienced ones, upon the following:

– we’re using Asterisk 13.7.0, that is deployed on a host, that has a public IP *and* a couple of gray IPs (192.168.x.x & 10.10.x.x)

– we’re using WebRTC web-page (jsSIP) as a client

Which is the proper setup of ICE/STUN related config (on the Asterisk and on the client) for the most reliable work in most cases ?

For example, now we’re trying to use our own STUN server (from Debian’s
“stund” package), whose documentation says “You have to have 2 different public IPs on the same server in order to run STUN server”

Is it really so? and what are the implications of using it with only one IP (which is possible, at least it runs seemingly well without that)

On the client side, we’ve configured jsSIP.UA to use our own STUN server via “pcConfig” object

On Asterisk, we have icesupport=yes both in sip.conf and rtp.conf. We’ve also enabled stunaddr=stun.l.google.com:19302 in rtp.conf.

Is it proper solution for this case ?

When I inspect SIP packets, I see that there are ICE candidates in both offers and answers. BUT: SDP bodies in the packets from server to client contain “gray” IPs of the Asterisk host:

a=ice-ufrag:636c49c84158d2b45840291c6724c0f9
a=ice-pwd:6b012c01092ec01275964eaa55a8784b a

One thought on - Questions Regarding ICE And STUN With Asterisk

  • Well, after a more specific research I came to 2 conclusions:

    1) no need to specify “stunaddr” option in Asterisk configs in this case, as we know that host definitely has a public IP

    2) as of the inclusion of all local IP-addresses as candidates, this is
    (apparently) done in “rtp_add_candidates_to_ice” function of res_rtp_asterisk.c, where it has a code:
    /* Add all the local interface IP addresses */
    ..

    And as fas as I can tell from basic ICE overview [1], this should NOT
    prevent proper session functioning, as long as candidate pairs
    (local/remote) are checked for connectivity first.

    Still, I would think it to be useful, to have an option to EXCLUDE local IP-addresses from using as local candidates.

    What does the community think on this ?

    Thanks

    Kirill Marchuk

    [1] https://trac.pjsip.org/repos/wiki/Using_Standalone_ICE

    18.03.2016 14:37, Kirill Marchuk пишет:

    —