You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@openmeetings.apache.org by "K. Kamhamea" <ka...@googlemail.com> on 2020/12/15 14:05:46 UTC
TURN server (coturn) why?
I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can be
accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
the simple iptables command does the trick
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port 5443
and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with or
without turn server)
It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the communication
further.
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by Denis Noctor <de...@gmail.com>.
.... assuming cloud server is not behind a NAT firewall, which most are... you can find a lot of info in the user groups regarding this between March and August.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 15, 2020, at 11:49 PM, K. Kamhamea <ka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
> 1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique public IP.
> 2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one public IP using coturn.
> --- That's cool !!!
> And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM server resides on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
>
> Thank You so much for the link.
> K
>
>> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <al...@the5stars.org>:
>> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
>> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
>> >
>> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
>> > 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
>> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
>> > the simple iptables command does the trick
>> >
>> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
>> > 5443
>> >
>> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
>> > or without turn server)
>> >
>> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
>> > communication further.
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by Ali Alhaidary <al...@the5stars.org>.
Yes, as you do not have any FW or multiple NATs, but in real life,
things are different :-)
Ali
On 12/17/20 3:52 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> Of course. We had a mutual exchange through camera (we both used even
> I hight resolution) and microphone ( the sound was nearly "brilliant" ).
> We also watched videos and other slides.
> This test was limited though as two users participated only.
> Best K
>
> Am Do., 17. Dez. 2020 um 13:24 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary
> <ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org <ma...@the5stars.org>>:
>
> kindly define 'worked' please
>
> Ali
>
> On 12/17/20 12:47 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
>> I tested the following configuration and it worked without TURN
>> Server. Maybe the reason ist the new Kurento version available
>> since November 2020.
>> (https://www.kurento.org/blog/kurento-6150-november-2020)
>>
>> WebRTC.png
>>
>> Am Mi., 16. Dez. 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Rohrbach, Gerald
>> <G.Rohrbach@funkegruppe.de <ma...@funkegruppe.de>>:
>>
>> That’s also understanding Maxim.
>>
>> If client and OM are in the same network no coturn is needed.
>> ( Must not be the same IP range, we do have in each building
>> different IP ranges in use, everything is routed on the core
>> switch.
>>
>> In our case one external OM has external public IP.
>>
>> Physical machine.
>>
>> But clients in real live are at home, that means
>>
>> a home router with NAT is between.
>>
>> So coturn is needed.
>>
>> I have tested a lot with this, we do have an internal
>>
>> OM server and and external.
>>
>> We are not using the docker KMS, but I think
>>
>> that should work also.
>>
>> As our sytems are pretty stable we do not touch.
>>
>> Gerald
>>
>> *Von:*Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax666@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 09:16
>> *An:* Openmeetings user-list <user@openmeetings.apache.org
>> <ma...@openmeetings.apache.org>>
>> *Betreff:* Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 12:50, K. Kamhamea
>> <kamhamea@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
>>
>> 1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a
>> unique public IP.
>>
>> this is false assumption
>>
>> According to my tests
>>
>> since WebRTC is P2P
>>
>> The client IP should be accessible to KMS
>>
>> So TURN is not necessary as long as the server AND all client
>> IP addresses are public
>>
>> And there are no routers FW etc. in the middle ....
>>
>> 2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only
>> one public IP using coturn.
>>
>> --- That's cool !!!
>>
>> And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your
>> OM server resides on a cloud that doesn't provide such a
>> service.
>>
>> Thank You so much for the link.
>>
>> K
>>
>> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary
>> <ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org
>> <ma...@the5stars.org>>:
>>
>> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
>> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
>> >
>> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
>> > 2. The server URL can be written without port
>> number (meaning it can
>> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn
>> server installed
>> > the simple iptables command does the trick
>> >
>> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j
>> REDIRECT --to-port
>> > 5443
>> >
>> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't
>> work anyway (with
>> > or without turn server)
>> >
>> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow
>> down the
>> > communication further.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maxim
>>
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by "K. Kamhamea" <ka...@googlemail.com>.
Of course. We had a mutual exchange through camera (we both used even I
hight resolution) and microphone ( the sound was nearly "brilliant" ).
We also watched videos and other slides.
This test was limited though as two users participated only.
Best K
Am Do., 17. Dez. 2020 um 13:24 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <
ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org>:
> kindly define 'worked' please
>
> Ali
> On 12/17/20 12:47 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
>
> I tested the following configuration and it worked without TURN Server.
> Maybe the reason ist the new Kurento version available since November 2020.
> (https://www.kurento.org/blog/kurento-6150-november-2020)
>
> [image: WebRTC.png]
>
> Am Mi., 16. Dez. 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Rohrbach, Gerald <
> G.Rohrbach@funkegruppe.de>:
>
>> That’s also understanding Maxim.
>>
>>
>>
>> If client and OM are in the same network no coturn is needed. ( Must not
>> be the same IP range, we do have in each building different IP ranges in
>> use, everything is routed on the core switch.
>>
>>
>>
>> In our case one external OM has external public IP.
>>
>> Physical machine.
>>
>>
>>
>> But clients in real live are at home, that means
>>
>> a home router with NAT is between.
>>
>> So coturn is needed.
>>
>> I have tested a lot with this, we do have an internal
>>
>> OM server and and external.
>>
>> We are not using the docker KMS, but I think
>>
>> that should work also.
>>
>> As our sytems are pretty stable we do not touch.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gerald
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von:* Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax666@gmail.com]
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 09:16
>> *An:* Openmeetings user-list <us...@openmeetings.apache.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 12:50, K. Kamhamea <ka...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
>>
>> 1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique public IP.
>>
>>
>>
>> this is false assumption
>>
>> According to my tests
>>
>> since WebRTC is P2P
>>
>> The client IP should be accessible to KMS
>>
>>
>>
>> So TURN is not necessary as long as the server AND all client IP
>> addresses are public
>>
>> And there are no routers FW etc. in the middle ....
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one public IP
>> using coturn.
>>
>> --- That's cool !!!
>>
>> And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM server resides
>> on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank You so much for the link.
>>
>> K
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <
>> ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org>:
>>
>> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
>> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
>> >
>> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
>> > 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
>> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
>> > the simple iptables command does the trick
>> >
>> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
>> > 5443
>> >
>> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
>> > or without turn server)
>> >
>> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
>> > communication further.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maxim
>>
>
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by Ali Alhaidary <al...@the5stars.org>.
kindly define 'worked' please
Ali
On 12/17/20 12:47 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> I tested the following configuration and it worked without TURN
> Server. Maybe the reason ist the new Kurento version available since
> November 2020. (https://www.kurento.org/blog/kurento-6150-november-2020)
>
> WebRTC.png
>
> Am Mi., 16. Dez. 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Rohrbach, Gerald
> <G.Rohrbach@funkegruppe.de <ma...@funkegruppe.de>>:
>
> That’s also understanding Maxim.
>
> If client and OM are in the same network no coturn is needed. (
> Must not be the same IP range, we do have in each building
> different IP ranges in use, everything is routed on the core switch.
>
> In our case one external OM has external public IP.
>
> Physical machine.
>
> But clients in real live are at home, that means
>
> a home router with NAT is between.
>
> So coturn is needed.
>
> I have tested a lot with this, we do have an internal
>
> OM server and and external.
>
> We are not using the docker KMS, but I think
>
> that should work also.
>
> As our sytems are pretty stable we do not touch.
>
> Gerald
>
> *Von:*Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax666@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 09:16
> *An:* Openmeetings user-list <user@openmeetings.apache.org
> <ma...@openmeetings.apache.org>>
> *Betreff:* Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 12:50, K. Kamhamea <kamhamea@googlemail.com
> <ma...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
>
> 1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique
> public IP.
>
> this is false assumption
>
> According to my tests
>
> since WebRTC is P2P
>
> The client IP should be accessible to KMS
>
> So TURN is not necessary as long as the server AND all client IP
> addresses are public
>
> And there are no routers FW etc. in the middle ....
>
> 2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one
> public IP using coturn.
>
> --- That's cool !!!
>
> And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM
> server resides on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
>
> Thank You so much for the link.
>
> K
>
> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary
> <ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org
> <ma...@the5stars.org>>:
>
> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>
>
> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
> >
> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
> > 2. The server URL can be written without port number
> (meaning it can
> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server
> installed
> > the simple iptables command does the trick
> >
> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j
> REDIRECT --to-port
> > 5443
> >
> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work
> anyway (with
> > or without turn server)
> >
> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
> > communication further.
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim
>
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by "K. Kamhamea" <ka...@googlemail.com>.
I tested the following configuration and it worked without TURN Server.
Maybe the reason ist the new Kurento version available since November 2020.
(https://www.kurento.org/blog/kurento-6150-november-2020)
[image: WebRTC.png]
Am Mi., 16. Dez. 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Rohrbach, Gerald <
G.Rohrbach@funkegruppe.de>:
> That’s also understanding Maxim.
>
>
>
> If client and OM are in the same network no coturn is needed. ( Must not
> be the same IP range, we do have in each building different IP ranges in
> use, everything is routed on the core switch.
>
>
>
> In our case one external OM has external public IP.
>
> Physical machine.
>
>
>
> But clients in real live are at home, that means
>
> a home router with NAT is between.
>
> So coturn is needed.
>
> I have tested a lot with this, we do have an internal
>
> OM server and and external.
>
> We are not using the docker KMS, but I think
>
> that should work also.
>
> As our sytems are pretty stable we do not touch.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax666@gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 09:16
> *An:* Openmeetings user-list <us...@openmeetings.apache.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 12:50, K. Kamhamea <ka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
>
> 1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique public IP.
>
>
>
> this is false assumption
>
> According to my tests
>
> since WebRTC is P2P
>
> The client IP should be accessible to KMS
>
>
>
> So TURN is not necessary as long as the server AND all client IP addresses
> are public
>
> And there are no routers FW etc. in the middle ....
>
>
>
> 2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one public IP
> using coturn.
>
> --- That's cool !!!
>
> And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM server resides
> on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
>
>
>
> Thank You so much for the link.
>
> K
>
>
>
> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <
> ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org>:
>
> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>
>
> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
> >
> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
> > 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
> > the simple iptables command does the trick
> >
> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
> > 5443
> >
> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
> > or without turn server)
> >
> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
> > communication further.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim
>
AW: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by "Rohrbach, Gerald" <G....@funkegruppe.de>.
That’s also understanding Maxim.
If client and OM are in the same network no coturn is needed. ( Must not be the same IP range, we do have in each building different IP ranges in use, everything is routed on the core switch.
In our case one external OM has external public IP.
Physical machine.
But clients in real live are at home, that means
a home router with NAT is between.
So coturn is needed.
I have tested a lot with this, we do have an internal
OM server and and external.
We are not using the docker KMS, but I think
that should work also.
As our sytems are pretty stable we do not touch.
Gerald
Von: Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax666@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 09:16
An: Openmeetings user-list <us...@openmeetings.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 12:50, K. Kamhamea <ka...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique public IP.
this is false assumption
According to my tests
since WebRTC is P2P
The client IP should be accessible to KMS
So TURN is not necessary as long as the server AND all client IP addresses are public
And there are no routers FW etc. in the middle ....
2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one public IP using coturn.
--- That's cool !!!
And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM server resides on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
Thank You so much for the link.
K
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <al...@the5stars.org>>:
https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
>
> 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
> 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
> be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
> the simple iptables command does the trick
>
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
> 5443
>
> and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
> or without turn server)
>
> It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
> communication further.
--
Best regards,
Maxim
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 12:50, K. Kamhamea <ka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
> 1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique public IP.
>
this is false assumption
According to my tests
since WebRTC is P2P
The client IP should be accessible to KMS
So TURN is not necessary as long as the server AND all client IP addresses
are public
And there are no routers FW etc. in the middle ....
> 2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one public IP
> using coturn.
> --- That's cool !!!
> And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM server resides
> on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
>
> Thank You so much for the link.
> K
>
> Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <
> ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org>:
>
>> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
>> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
>> >
>> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
>> > 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
>> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
>> > the simple iptables command does the trick
>> >
>> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
>> > 5443
>> >
>> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
>> > or without turn server)
>> >
>> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
>> > communication further.
>>
>
--
Best regards,
Maxim
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by "K. Kamhamea" <ka...@googlemail.com>.
In summary two conclusions can be drawn, right?
1. There is no need to use courn if your server uses a unique public IP.
2. You can run a OM Server in a private network with only one public IP
using coturn.
--- That's cool !!!
And probably it is even necessary to use coturn if your OM server resides
on a cloud that doesn't provide such a service.
Thank You so much for the link.
K
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Ali Alhaidary <
ali.alhaidary@the5stars.org>:
> https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
>
>
> On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> > I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
> >
> > 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
> > 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
> > be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
> > the simple iptables command does the trick
> >
> > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
> > 5443
> >
> > and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
> > or without turn server)
> >
> > It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
> > communication further.
>
Re: TURN server (coturn) why?
Posted by Ali Alhaidary <al...@the5stars.org>.
https://www.callstats.io/blog/2017/10/26/webrtc-product-turn-server
On 12/15/20 5:05 PM, K. Kamhamea wrote:
> I wonder why we need a coturn anyway?
>
> 1. SSL certificates can be installed without it
> 2. The server URL can be written without port number (meaning it can
> be accessed by the default 433 port) without turn server installed
> the simple iptables command does the trick
>
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port
> 5443
>
> and changing server.xml to the default port doesn't work anyway (with
> or without turn server)
>
> It think better avoid turn server as it may slow down the
> communication further.