On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
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?
Indeed, that's one easy option. Not sure what the liveness status of
this draft is. Given the simplicity, I wonder why it hasn't gone
anywhere since March 2000. (For what it's worth, the same document
could be written for TCP as well. I'm completely agnostic as to
whether the ToU proposal or tunneling is a better choice. There are
some minor trade-offs in terms of port allocation and header overhead,
but they are pretty trivial.)
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.
Right, but that's probably a bit beyond the pay grade of this working
group to fix...
Ted
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
