-1

Can we do away with TURN server for WebRTC sessions to be successful for ALL the scenarios? By ALL the scenarios, I mean the two peers can be served by different ISPs and the traffic may be routed through multiple hops over the public internet.

If not, does IPv6 or SDN offer any solution to this?

Milind Jalwadi
  • 37
  • 3
  • 3
    I'm unsure what you're asking. TURN servers specifically exist because a connection cannot always realistically be achieved without one. If you don't use a TURN server, then ***no***, you're *not* always able to successfully connect in today's internet. – deceze Jan 19 '16 at 14:05
  • Since IPv6 doesn't do NAT, you typically don't have the problems which need TURN to solve. Users with IPv6 have public addresses because there are plenty of IPv6 addresses to go around. NAT was developed to postpone the IPv4 shortage until IPv6 became ubiquitous. IPv6 will restore the original premise of end-to-end connectivity around which IP was developed. – Ron Maupin Jan 19 '16 at 14:27
  • 3
    Note that you may still have problems with firewalls in an IPv6 scenario, which may still necessitate a TURN server. – deceze Jan 19 '16 at 14:32
  • @deceze, TURN gets around problems of NAT which has nothing to do with firewalls. IPv6 doesn't have NAT, so it doesn't need TURN, but it still can use firewalls. – Ron Maupin Jan 20 '16 at 16:19
  • @Ron TURN servers get around *connectivity problems*, where one or both sides cannot open an incoming port. NAT is one possible cause of this, but firewalls may as well prevent this. – deceze Jan 20 '16 at 16:32

1 Answers1

0

If you're asking if a TURN server is enough to get ICE connectivity in WebRTC, then yes. All TURN servers also implement STUN, so it should be enough.

Adrian Ber
  • 20,474
  • 12
  • 67
  • 117