Hi Roni, sure, the purpose of this document is not to create a new ICE type of mechanism, I agree. Nevertheless, the document needs to be clear about the options implementers and administrators have. That is, what is likely to work, what is not likely to work, special cases (e.g., when two nodes are in the same private address space), etc. That is the type of (brief) discussion I would like to see in the draft. When it comes to the definition of the mechanisms themselves, I am OK with them as they are.
Thanks, Gonzalo On 24/06/2013 11:58 AM, Roni Even wrote: > Hi Gonzalo, > During the WG discussion we were asked to have in the main body just the > case of manage networks and leave in the informational appendix A some > informational text about finding routable addresses since it was clear that > there is no guarantee that it will work. I do not think that it is the > purpose of this document to discuss the whole topic of finding routable > addresses, we are just pointing at available options. The idea is that there > is always a fall back to SRR > Roni > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 24 June, 2013 11:11 AM >> To: Roni Even >> Cc: 'P2PSIP Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] UNSAF considerations and draft-ietf-p2psip-drr >> >> Hi Roni, >> >> I think the draft should discuss in more detail how a node makes the > decision >> of attempting to use DRR and what are the trade-offs. The case of closed > or >> managed networks is clear. The draft can mention that an administrator >> simply configures nodes to use DRR because the administrator knows, >> somehow, that it will work fine. >> >> In open networks, the draft should discuss the trial and error system > being >> proposed. For example, a node without a public IP address may be able to >> communicate directly with a node in the same non-public address space. >> That case is not covered by the discussions about UNSAF mechanisms. The >> whole point about developing ICE was that UNSAF mechanisms do not work >> in many situations. >> >> In short, this is an important interoperability issue because it relates > to when >> a node should use one mechanism or another. Therefore, the draft should >> discuss all the implications of the proposed mechanism carefully. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> >> On 23/06/2013 6:28 PM, Roni Even wrote: >>> Hi Gonzalo, >>> Thanks for point out to RFC3424. >>> How about adding to the following sentence an informative reference to >>> RFC3424. Note that appendix A is not creating an UNSAF proposal but >>> just mentions some methods for informational purpose. >>> >>> Suggest adding to "Note that there is no foolproof way to determine if >>> a peer is publically reachable, other than via out-of-band >>> mechanisms." to >>> >>> "Note that there is no foolproof way to determine if a peer is >>> publically reachable, other than via out-of-band mechanisms. For >>> discussion about issues with address evaluation also see UNSAF > [RFC3424]" >>> >>> I am not sure if it adds much information but it may be good to have >>> this reference >>> >>> Roni Even >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo >>>> Sent: 17 June, 2013 3:02 PM >>>> To: P2PSIP Mailing List >>>> Subject: [P2PSIP] UNSAF considerations and draft-ietf-p2psip-drr >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Appendix A of the following draft describes how a node can obtain IP >>>> addresses on which it may be reached: >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-07#appendix-A >>>> >>>> Have you taken into account the UNSAF considerations? >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3424 >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> P2PSIP mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >>> > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
