for some customers who only send or only receive audio
So every client Both are directly connected to MCUs with public IP addresses (not each other).
Q1: Do you still need to use STUN and TURN for NAT traversal? if it is like this?
Q2: Are there any hackers in WebRTC in the browser that can eliminate the need for STUN and TURN?
In my opinion: most client-server architectures do not have any difficulties for clients behind NAT. What is the difference between this and webrtc?
< /p>
Q1: Is there still a necessity to use STUN and TURN for NAT traversal
?? if so Why ??
For your scenario, You don’t need to use STUN or TURN. Let me explain why.
Every client in the private network is under some kind of NAT with a public IP address. The outside world does not know the private IP address of the client , Even if they know that they cannot connect with the client without knowing the public IP address. STUN server is used to collect this public IP address.
So if your server wants to initiate the connection, then it The client is required to send its NAT’s public IP. The client will use the STUN server to know its public IP and send it to the server. However, if the client initiates the connection, it does not need to know the NAT’s public IP. The client can send packets Go to the public server to initiate the connection. The server can know the cilents public IP from the client data packet, and then they can connect. So STUN is not needed.
Your server is acting as TURN in this case Role. So you don’t need a TURN server.
Q2: Are there any hackers in WebRTC in the browser that can eliminate the need for STUN and TURN?
No hackers. Use TURN/STUN according to the scenario. For scenarios you don’t need. If you want to make a client-client connection, then you will need a STUN server.
I have a WebRTC MCU (kurento) running on a public IP address.
Serves some clients who only send or only receive audio.
Therefore, every client is The MCUs of the IP address (not each other) are directly connected.
Q1: Do I still need to use STUN and TURN for NAT traversal? if it is like this?
Q2: Are there any hackers in WebRTC in the browser that can eliminate the need for STUN and TURN?
In my opinion: most client-server architectures do not have any difficulties for clients behind NAT. What is the difference between this and webrtc?
Yes ICE is absolutely necessary for WebRTC.
Q1: Is there still a necessity to use STUN and TURN for NAT traversal
?? if so Why ??
For your scenario, you don’t need to use STUN or TURN. Let me explain The reason.
Every client in the private network is under some kind of NAT with a public IP address. The outside world does not know the private IP address of the client, even if they do not know the public IP address It is also impossible to connect with the client. The STUN server is used to collect this public IP address.
So, if your server wants to initiate the connection, then it needs the client to send its NAT public IP. Client The STUN server will be used to know its public IP and send it to the server. However, if the client initiates the connection, there is no need to know the public IP of the NAT. The client can send the packet to the public server to initiate the connection. The server can start the connection from the client The cilents public IP is known in the packet, and then they can connect. So STUN is not needed.
Your server is playing the role of TURN in this case. So you don’t need a TURN server.
Q2: Are there any hackers in WebRTC in the browser that can eliminate the need for STUN and TURN?
No hackers. Use TURN/STUN according to the scenario. For scenarios you don’t need. If you want to make a client-client connection, then you will need a STUN server.