On 2010-10-29 00:24, Keith Moore wrote: > On Oct 28, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > >>> ... the most workable approach for now requires applications to pass IP >>> addresses to peers >>> in referrals (perhaps with some additional information) and for those peers >>> to make heuristic >>> guesses about which addresses to try first. Granted that's not a very good >>> solution, but it's >>> way better than trying to prevent apps from making those decisions. >> Keith, it seems that you are describing ICE. > > not specifically, no. I'm speaking in general terms here. given the > considerable constraints associated with the current operating environment, > different applications will make different tradeoffs. > >> Of course, ICE only really works for UDP based applications. So we may need >> to run TCP or a new equivalent protocol on top of UDP. Of course, if we do >> that, we can also get a solution that works through not only NAT, but also >> basic stateful firewalls. >> >> ICE, STUN, TURN forever. Not exactly what we were shooting for in 1992. Oh >> well. > > not what I'm shooting for now either. but neither do I want to prevent such > things from working (for those apps that can use them) in the interim.
I'd invite people who think this topic is of general importance to read draft-carpenter-referral-ps and send comments to its authors (or to the [email protected] list). It's proving quite hard to make headway in getting the IETF to recognise referrals as a problem area in its own right, but I really think we need to do that, instead of bickering about the side-effects of various individual mechanisms that break up the address space or the name space. Brian _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
