Re: Do you need the stun server?

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Tim, Jan 26, 2009.

  1. Tim

    Tim Guest

    Nigel wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am just setting up Just voip using a fritzbox. Do I need to put in the
    > Stunserver or not ? Will I get better quality if I do or is it best not to
    > use it. Also is it worth using:-
    >
    > stun.justvoip.com:5060


    Never ever. Stun is such a 2002 technology.


    Although TURN is seeing a comeback with some providers, but these are
    few and far between.

    Tim
     
    Tim, Jan 26, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim

    Chris Blunt Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:58:05 +0000, Tim <> wrote:

    >Nigel wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I am just setting up Just voip using a fritzbox. Do I need to put in the
    >> Stunserver or not ? Will I get better quality if I do or is it best not to
    >> use it. Also is it worth using:-
    >>
    >> stun.justvoip.com:5060

    >
    >Never ever. Stun is such a 2002 technology.


    So would you say there is any disadvantage in using it if it's
    available? I have my Sipgate account set up to use their STUN server
    (stun.sipgate.net:10000).

    Might I be better off not using it?

    Chris
     
    Chris Blunt, Jan 26, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim

    alexd Guest

    Chris Blunt wrote:

    > So would you say there is any disadvantage in using it if it's
    > available? I have my Sipgate account set up to use their STUN server
    > (stun.sipgate.net:10000).
    >
    > Might I be better off not using it?


    Use it. If you have a problem, stop using it. If the problem goes away when
    you stop using it, great.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    18:38:18 up 52 days, 20:50, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.12, 0.06
    Sexy ladies, and nasty boys, all freaky freakin', to the robot noise
     
    alexd, Jan 26, 2009
    #3
  4. Tim

    Ivor Jones Guest

    In news:497ddd8d$0$514$,
    Tim <> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
    : Nigel wrote:
    : > Hi,
    : >
    : > I am just setting up Just voip using a fritzbox. Do I need to put
    : > in the Stunserver or not ? Will I get better quality if I do or is
    : > it best not to use it. Also is it worth using:-
    : >
    : > stun.justvoip.com:5060
    :
    : Never ever. Stun is such a 2002 technology.

    That sentence doesn't make sense.

    Translation please..?

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jan 27, 2009
    #4
  5. Tim

    Ivor Jones Guest

    In news:,
    Chris Blunt <> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
    : On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:58:05 +0000, Tim <> wrote:
    :
    : >Nigel wrote:
    : >> Hi,
    : >>
    : >> I am just setting up Just voip using a fritzbox. Do I need to put
    : >> in the Stunserver or not ? Will I get better quality if I do or
    : >> is it best not to use it. Also is it worth using:-
    : >>
    : >> stun.justvoip.com:5060
    : >
    : >Never ever. Stun is such a 2002 technology.
    :
    : So would you say there is any disadvantage in using it if it's
    : available? I have my Sipgate account set up to use their STUN server
    : (stun.sipgate.net:10000).
    :
    : Might I be better off not using it?

    Does it work with it..? Does it work without it..?

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it..!

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jan 27, 2009
    #5
  6. Tim

    Chris Blunt Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:18:22 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
    <> wrote:

    >In news:,
    >Chris Blunt <> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
    >: On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:58:05 +0000, Tim <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >Nigel wrote:
    >: >> Hi,
    >: >>
    >: >> I am just setting up Just voip using a fritzbox. Do I need to put
    >: >> in the Stunserver or not ? Will I get better quality if I do or
    >: >> is it best not to use it. Also is it worth using:-
    >: >>
    >: >> stun.justvoip.com:5060
    >: >
    >: >Never ever. Stun is such a 2002 technology.
    >:
    >: So would you say there is any disadvantage in using it if it's
    >: available? I have my Sipgate account set up to use their STUN server
    >: (stun.sipgate.net:10000).
    >:
    >: Might I be better off not using it?
    >
    >Does it work with it..? Does it work without it..?
    >
    >If it ain't broke, don't fix it..!
    >
    >Ivor


    It worked with it, and it works without it if I turn it off.

    Things are not always so simple that you can determine in such black
    and white terms whether they are "broke" (as you put it) or not.
    Something can appear to be working properly, but if a particular set
    of unforeseen circumstances should arise, they stop working.

    It was Tim's "Never ever" comment on the use of STUN servers which
    alerted me to the possibility that there might be a reason not to use
    them. I'm still no clearer about just how they could cause problems
    and what the risks might be.

    Chris
     
    Chris Blunt, Jan 28, 2009
    #6
  7. Tim

    Ivor Jones Guest

    In news:,
    Chris Blunt <> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:

    [snip]

    : It worked with it, and it works without it if I turn it off.
    :
    : Things are not always so simple that you can determine in such black
    : and white terms whether they are "broke" (as you put it) or not.
    : Something can appear to be working properly, but if a particular set
    : of unforeseen circumstances should arise, they stop working.
    :
    : It was Tim's "Never ever" comment on the use of STUN servers which
    : alerted me to the possibility that there might be a reason not to use
    : them. I'm still no clearer about just how they could cause problems
    : and what the risks might be.
    :
    : Chris

    Understood. But there is no way I can see in the settings of my Fritz!Box
    to set STUN or not, so I have no idea if it's being used or not. Similarly
    with other devices such as the Sipura SPA-2000 I also have here it works
    fine both on and off.

    From what I understand Sipgate use a non-standard port (10000) for STUN, I
    believe the usual port is 3478..? Also I don't think it matters whose STUN
    server you use, it doesn't seem to be provider-specific.

    But if it works, leave it alone. By all means try turning it off if you
    have a problem, but if it worked before and suddenly stops working without
    you having changed anything, it's unlikely to be a locally set setting
    that's the cause.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jan 28, 2009
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    Ivor Jones <> wrote:
    >In news:,
    >Chris Blunt <> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >: It worked with it, and it works without it if I turn it off.
    >:
    >: Things are not always so simple that you can determine in such black
    >: and white terms whether they are "broke" (as you put it) or not.
    >: Something can appear to be working properly, but if a particular set
    >: of unforeseen circumstances should arise, they stop working.
    >:
    >: It was Tim's "Never ever" comment on the use of STUN servers which
    >: alerted me to the possibility that there might be a reason not to use
    >: them. I'm still no clearer about just how they could cause problems
    >: and what the risks might be.
    >:
    >: Chris
    >
    >Understood. But there is no way I can see in the settings of my Fritz!Box
    >to set STUN or not, so I have no idea if it's being used or not. Similarly
    >with other devices such as the Sipura SPA-2000 I also have here it works
    >fine both on and off.


    If your Fritz!Box is acting as your router - ie. it has your external
    IP address, then it doesn't need anything special at all. The (analogue)
    phones you connect to it should "just work"

    >From what I understand Sipgate use a non-standard port (10000) for STUN, I
    >believe the usual port is 3478..? Also I don't think it matters whose STUN
    >server you use, it doesn't seem to be provider-specific.


    STUN is indeed not provider specific. It exists to let the phone know
    what the external IP address is and maybe how the NAT router mangles
    outgoing port mappings. Sipgate probably set theirs to port 10000 to
    stop joe random public using it (and abusing it).

    SIP was developed just as NAT was becoming popular and really wasn't
    designed to work behind NAT at all...

    SIP devices need to know their external IP address because SIP wasn't
    designed to work through a NAT firewall. SIP encodes the IP address of
    the device into the data stream, so the far-end can use that IP address
    to send stuff back on. If the phone is behind NAT, then it might encode
    it's NATted address (eg. 192.168.3.45), so when the far-end tries to
    send data back, it sends to the wrong place.

    STUN is just one way to help matters here.

    I suspect Tims comment is because he sells a router with a SIP ALG that
    actually works :)

    IMO STUN still has a place. Some ITSPs still don't run NAT unmangling SIP
    proxys and STUN is the most widely supported way for phones to contact
    those ITSPs.

    (And it works for me :)

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Jan 28, 2009
    #8
  9. Tim

    Tim Guest

    Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >
    > I suspect Tims comment is because he sells a router with a SIP ALG that
    > actually works :)


    I hate SIP ALGs, they annoy me.

    A lot of my life is spent working out how to disable the ALGs on various
    popular routers.

    A high percentage of our product returns are because people say `This x
    phone doesn't work, but my y works fine. x is rubbish`. Not usually
    because of any difference in the product, but because their SIP
    footprint is slightly different and so they upset the ALG in different ways.



    Actually, I don't mind passive SIP ALGs. Those which monitor SIP
    packets and do things - like prioritising the packets of an associated
    RTP stream.

    But active ALGs which change the SIP packets on the way through are bad
    and wrong.

    I don't think we sell any routers with SIP ALGs. We don't sell
    Intertex anymore. I'm not actually sure whether the Fritzbox does or not.

    Tim
     
    Tim, Jan 29, 2009
    #9
  10. In article <4981ce42$0$508$>,
    Tim <> wrote:
    >Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >>
    >> I suspect Tims comment is because he sells a router with a SIP ALG that
    >> actually works :)

    >
    >I hate SIP ALGs, they annoy me.


    Me too - hope you saw the :) above...


    >A lot of my life is spent working out how to disable the ALGs on various
    >popular routers.
    >
    >A high percentage of our product returns are because people say `This x
    >phone doesn't work, but my y works fine. x is rubbish`. Not usually
    >because of any difference in the product, but because their SIP
    >footprint is slightly different and so they upset the ALG in different ways.


    I've got one right now - customer had some ancient thompson router
    which I couldn't turn the ALG off - it's telnet interface was not like
    their web site suggested, so they got a new one from their ISP - Zen -
    who sold them some new Thompson one compatable with VoIP - sure it was -
    it came with 2 analogue ports and a DECT interface - which didn't help
    the phones they had - even after turning off the Telephony side via
    the web interface the router still would not let SIP packets though -
    verified by tcpdump on the server end - I can see NTP packets from the
    phones on the NTP server, STUN packets on the STUN server, but but no
    SIP packets on the PBX. So that's going back after I've made another
    site visit, this time with the last of my stack of trusty old
    Draytek 2600's...

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Jan 29, 2009
    #10
  11. On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:41:53 +0000, Tim faxed us with....

    > Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >>
    >> I suspect Tims comment is because he sells a router with a SIP ALG that
    >> actually works :)

    >
    > I hate SIP ALGs, they annoy me.
    >
    > A lot of my life is spent working out how to disable the ALGs on various
    > popular routers.
    >
    > A high percentage of our product returns are because people say `This x
    > phone doesn't work, but my y works fine. x is rubbish`. Not usually
    > because of any difference in the product, but because their SIP
    > footprint is slightly different and so they upset the ALG in different
    > ways.
    >
    >
    >
    > Actually, I don't mind passive SIP ALGs. Those which monitor SIP
    > packets and do things - like prioritising the packets of an associated
    > RTP stream.
    >
    > But active ALGs which change the SIP packets on the way through are bad
    > and wrong.
    >
    > I don't think we sell any routers with SIP ALGs. We don't sell
    > Intertex anymore. I'm not actually sure whether the Fritzbox does or
    > not.
    >
    > Tim


    ALG - Is what? excuse the question.

    --
    Replica Watches - TRY LIDL - Cheap meds? Visit your GP
     
    Blah Blah Blah, Jan 29, 2009
    #11
  12. In article <4981fb18$0$11941$>,
    Blah Blah Blah <> wrote:

    >ALG - Is what? excuse the question.


    Application Layer Gateway.

    A bit of software that runs on the router that looks for data going
    through it that matches a particular pattern or protocol, then does
    "something" with that data, depending on what it thinks it needs to do.

    In theory, if they're written correctly, they can help with some of the
    frustrations caused by NAT firewalls and various applications - eg. FTP
    and SIP and ... However most (all?) SIP ALGs are broken, or don't work
    correctly, or worse.. (cause you so much frustration that you end up
    throwing it against the wall)

    Protocols that need to use more than one port generally break through NAT
    firewalls - eg. FTP, although that's fairly well understood, so generally
    "just works" these days. SIP is a bit more complex, and I really don't
    know why the router makers bother...

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, Jan 29, 2009
    #12
  13. On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:54:50 +0000, Gordon Henderson faxed us with....

    > In article <4981fb18$0$11941$>, Blah Blah Blah
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>ALG - Is what? excuse the question.

    >
    > Application Layer Gateway.
    >
    > A bit of software that runs on the router that looks for data going
    > through it that matches a particular pattern or protocol, then does
    > "something" with that data, depending on what it thinks it needs to do.
    >
    > In theory, if they're written correctly, they can help with some of the
    > frustrations caused by NAT firewalls and various applications - eg. FTP
    > and SIP and ... However most (all?) SIP ALGs are broken, or don't work
    > correctly, or worse.. (cause you so much frustration that you end up
    > throwing it against the wall)
    >
    > Protocols that need to use more than one port generally break through
    > NAT firewalls - eg. FTP, although that's fairly well understood, so
    > generally "just works" these days. SIP is a bit more complex, and I
    > really don't know why the router makers bother...
    >
    > Gordon


    Thanks Gordon. Was not familiar with the phrase. Yep, I deal day in day
    out with broken 'ALG's' on Cisco, Fortigate, Draytek messing with port 25
    traffic and screwing the QoS - usually broken virus scanning, but
    certainly similar in the trouble it causes.

    Thanks for clearing it up - old age catching me up.

    --
    Replica Watches - TRY LIDL - Cheap meds? Visit your GP
     
    Blah Blah Blah, Jan 30, 2009
    #13
  14. On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:55:54 +0000, Me faxed us with....

    > On 30 Jan 2009 07:09:19 GMT, Blah Blah Blah <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:54:50 +0000, Gordon Henderson faxed us with....
    >>
    >>> In article <4981fb18$0$11941$>, Blah Blah Blah
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>ALG - Is what? excuse the question.
    >>>
    >>> Application Layer Gateway.
    >>>
    >>> A bit of software that runs on the router that looks for data going
    >>> through it that matches a particular pattern or protocol, then does
    >>> "something" with that data, depending on what it thinks it needs to
    >>> do.
    >>>
    >>> In theory, if they're written correctly, they can help with some of
    >>> the frustrations caused by NAT firewalls and various applications -
    >>> eg. FTP and SIP and ... However most (all?) SIP ALGs are broken, or
    >>> don't work correctly, or worse.. (cause you so much frustration that
    >>> you end up throwing it against the wall)
    >>>
    >>> Protocols that need to use more than one port generally break through
    >>> NAT firewalls - eg. FTP, although that's fairly well understood, so
    >>> generally "just works" these days. SIP is a bit more complex, and I
    >>> really don't know why the router makers bother...
    >>>
    >>> Gordon

    >>
    >>Thanks Gordon. Was not familiar with the phrase. Yep, I deal day in day
    >>out with broken 'ALG's' on Cisco, Fortigate, Draytek messing with port
    >>25 traffic and screwing the QoS - usually broken virus scanning, but
    >>certainly similar in the trouble it causes.
    >>
    >>Thanks for clearing it up - old age catching me up.

    >
    >
    > I am amazed that if you are an IT professional, you didn't do a Google
    > search. Typing in "ALG" and "router" in to Google gives the very first
    > link as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-level_gateway


    Actually, I asked Gordon because he has forgotten more about VoIP and
    it's associated workings than google will ever know and his answers are
    always very relevant.

    I don't recall saying that I was an 'IT professional' but thank you for
    the compliment. It's very nice of you. Have a pleasant weekend. I can
    recommend the Ubuntu group if you have nothing to do.

    --
    Replica Watches - TRY LIDL - Cheap meds? Visit your GP
     
    Blah Blah Blah, Jan 30, 2009
    #14
  15. On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:56:50 +0000, Me faxed us with....

    >>I don't recall saying that I was an 'IT professional' but thank you for
    >>the compliment. It's very nice of you. Have a pleasant weekend. I can
    >>recommend the Ubuntu group if you have nothing to do.

    >
    > Thanks for the recommendation of the Ubuntu group :) As I told you
    > before, I have never played with Linux in my life.
    >
    > When you said "Yep, I deal day in day out with broken 'ALG's'" I assumed
    > your work was IT / phones related. My mistake - sorry.
    >
    > Me


    That's the danger of 'assuming'.

    How did you get on with your low voltage telephone fault rectification?
    You did a fair bit of guessing there too AFAIR. Seems a bit of 'googling'
    may have helped *you* and saved you asking stupid questions in uk.telecom.
    So, take some of your own advice and don't act so autistic in future when
    other people behave *just like you*


    --
    Replica Watches - TRY LIDL - Cheap meds? Visit your GP
     
    Blah Blah Blah, Jan 31, 2009
    #15
  16. Tim

    Graham. Guest

    "Ivor Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In news:497ddd8d$0$514$,
    > Tim <> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
    > : Nigel wrote:
    > : > Hi,
    > : >
    > : > I am just setting up Just voip using a fritzbox. Do I need to put
    > : > in the Stunserver or not ? Will I get better quality if I do or is
    > : > it best not to use it. Also is it worth using:-
    > : >
    > : > stun.justvoip.com:5060
    > :
    > : Never ever. Stun is such a 2002 technology.
    >
    > That sentence doesn't make sense.



    Doesn't make sense to me either. The RFC is dated March 2003!
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3489
    --
    Graham.

    %Profound_observation%
     
    Graham., Apr 3, 2009
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    676
  2. Andreas Piirimets
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,373
    Andreas Piirimets
    Jul 16, 2004
  3. Ramon F Herrera

    Looking for a STUN server

    Ramon F Herrera, Sep 13, 2005, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,087
    Raqueeb Hassan
    Sep 14, 2005
  4. Roger Barrett

    Sipgate STUN Server problem?

    Roger Barrett, Sep 21, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,257
  5. Philippe Deleye

    Re: Do you need the stun server?

    Philippe Deleye, Jan 24, 2009, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,043
    Philippe Deleye
    Jan 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page