On May 12, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote: > Hi Yaov, > > I do see NAT traversal as a requirement and should be made part of the > problem statement. I however do not see it as a resolution of #213 or #214. I > see resolution for #218 and #211 talk about NAT. > > Routing is about how packet is sent to the nexthop closer to the destination, > which is what this issue is about in my view. It is what determines if the > destination and source are one hop away or can traverse multiple gateways > along the way. So if you only allow direct routing (or through hubs), there > is no way packets can traverse any other way. > > What you seem to suggest is that there are ways in which VoIP can traverse > NAT at both the sender and the receiver. That in my view is a solution > suggestion, that you seem to be giving. > > Can you give more details of what you mean by #214?
#214 comes from a question that was raised. It assumes that part of the solution would be nodes that learn about the topology from other nodes. The question was, is discovering the topology an iterative process, or a one-shot process. Suppose node A asks node B, but node B does not have the information (but knows where to get it). Does node B tell node A to go ask node C, or does it ask node C itself, and relay the answer to node A? The text currently does not mandate one or the other. Yoav _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
