Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Learn peer reflexive candidates from all STUN reqs #48

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

leedm777
Copy link

@leedm777 leedm777 commented Dec 3, 2015

This patch allows ice4j to learn peer reflexive candidates from all STUN
requests, even if it will respond with a 487 Role Conflict. This allows
peer reflexive candidates to be learned sooner, instead of waiting for
conflict resolution to finish before learning the candidate.

This is necessary for interop with buggy peers that do not switch roles
when they receives the Role Conflict error. Chrome 46.0.2490.86 (current
version) appears to have this problem, which this patch alleviates.

I've looked at the relevant section of the spec (RFC 5244 section
7.2.1), and it appears that this behavior is not prohibited.

This patch allows ice4j to learn peer reflexive candidates from all STUN
requests, even if it will respond with a 487 Role Conflict. This allows
peer reflexive candidates to be learned sooner, instead of waiting for
conflict resolution to finish before learning the candidate.

This is necessary for interop with buggy peers that do not switch roles
when they receives the Role Conflict error. Chrome 46.0.2490.86 (current
version) appears to have this problem, which this patch alleviates.

I've looked at the relevant section of the spec (RFC 5244 section
7.2.1), and it appears that this behavior is not prohibited.
@leedm777
Copy link
Author

leedm777 commented Jan 6, 2016

bump.

@leedm777
Copy link
Author

leedm777 commented Feb 4, 2016

@bgrozev Can I get some feedback on this patch? Does it look legit? Is it likely to be merged?

@jitsi-jenkins
Copy link

Hi, thanks for your contribution!
If you haven't already done so, could you please make sure you sign our CLA (https://jitsi.org/icla for individuals and https://jitsi.org/ccla for corporations)? We would unfortunately be unable to merge your patch unless we have that piece :(.

@leedm777
Copy link
Author

@jitsi-jenkins There should already be one on file for me.

@mondain
Copy link
Contributor

mondain commented Nov 26, 2016

@bgrozev I'm curious to the status on this one as well (bump); Seems like a short and simple patch that may help us out on our project with the latest merges from you this week.

@bgrozev
Copy link
Member

bgrozev commented Nov 28, 2016

Sorry for the lack of response on this. It will take me some time to go over the patch, because of the potential implications. I will try and do it this week.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants