Hi,

 

In Minneapolis we presented draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-00. There was a hum
that showed consensus to add support for direct route mode. On the issue of
using relay peer and discovering of NAT behavior the decision was to
continue the discussion on the list.

 

One of the questions in the meeting was about using TURN for getting a relay
peer service. This topic was discussed in a separate thread pointing out
that the sending peer does not know that the address of the target and
cannot tell it to the TURN server, so that TURN server will discard the
message from the target of the message. The other point was that using relay
peer is an optional mode and is not dependent on discovery of NAT behavior,
for example the relay peers can be provisioned by the service provider or be
part of the bootstrap peers.

 

We updated the draft and submitted draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-01. In the
updated draft we tried to separate the NAT behavior discovery, offering
options to find relay peers from the issue of how to use a relay peer.

The draft explains that the sender of the request decides if to offer direct
response or a relay peer as the recommended response method based on trying
to find if it has a publicly reachable address or looking for relay peer
service. It can have better success based on past experience.  The sender of
the request can try, for example, using a relay peer and if fails to get a
response he can switch to symmetric routing when retrying the request.

 

We hope that the new draft addresses the questions and people are more
comfortable with these optional modes.

 

Please review the new draft. You can get the draft by accessing the link
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-01.txt 

 

Thanks

Roni Even

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

Reply via email to