Bug 1259842: allow RFC1918 pairing again r=mjf

MozReview-Commit-ID: 6afbRF64PM2

--HG--
extra : rebase_source : fbdf8db55ed9fb22cf39b375551741a5e75aac14

media/mtransport/test/ice_unittest.cpp

@@ -3294,7 +3294,9 @@ TEST_F(WebRtcIceConnectTest, TestPollCandPairsAfterConnect) {
   ASSERT_TRUE(ContainsSucceededPair(pairs));
 }
 
-TEST_F(WebRtcIceConnectTest, TestHostCandPairingFilter) {
+// TODO Bug 1259842 - disabled until we find a better way to handle two
+// candidates from different RFC1918 ranges
+TEST_F(WebRtcIceConnectTest, DISABLED_TestHostCandPairingFilter) {
   Init(false, false, false, false);
   AddStream("first", 1);
   ASSERT_TRUE(Gather());

media/mtransport/third_party/nICEr/src/ice/ice_component.c

@@ -991,8 +991,7 @@ int nr_ice_component_can_candidate_tcptype_pair(nr_socket_tcp_type left, nr_sock
     return(1);
   }
 
-/* local vs. remote matters here because we allow private -> public pairing,
- * but discourage public -> private pairing. */
+/* filter out pairings which won't work. */
 int nr_ice_component_can_candidate_addr_pair(nr_transport_addr *local, nr_transport_addr *remote)
   {
     int remote_range;
@@ -1007,10 +1006,6 @@ int nr_ice_component_can_candidate_addr_pair(nr_transport_addr *local, nr_transp
     if(nr_transport_addr_is_loopback(local) !=
        nr_transport_addr_is_loopback(remote))
       return(0);
-    remote_range = nr_transport_addr_get_private_addr_range(remote);
-    if(remote_range && (nr_transport_addr_get_private_addr_range(local) !=
-       remote_range))
-      return(0);
 
     return(1);
   }