>At 6:38 AM -0700 4/13/09, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >Also, "converting" SCTP to use UDP is likely to be relatively easy, >and similar to the mechanism proposed in the TCP-over-UDP draft. >Tunneling is another approach, with a different set of trade-offs.
For the tunnel version, are you thinking of this work: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00jul/I-D/sigtran-sctptunnel-00.txt or something else? >Also, the goal is to design RELOAD so that it could indeed use SCTP as >one of its transports in the future if there's demand for it. I thought that RFC 4168 laid out some decent reasons why you might prefer SCTP to some of the other choices, but the big question seems to be: Does anyone involved have enough pull with NAT vendors to get it recognized so it can be deployed? Without that, we seem to be stuck. What amazes me is that we're busily considering NATs for v6, despite this sort of thing. Ted >Henning > >On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Sumit Garg wrote: > >> Advantages as compared to SCTP?? >> >_______________________________________________ >P2PSIP mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
