Hi,
THe newer version of the draft which you are referring to is
draft-ietf-sip-nat-01.txt. This addresses only issues with NAT.
I think the issues with firewall will be addressed in a different
draft.
There is also a draft available, which discusses about the various
solutions for NAT tarversal,and also gives call flows.It should be
available at
http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-sipping-nat-scenarios-00.txt
Regards
Seshu
Kevin Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/18/2001 02:04:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Seshashayi T/HSSBLR)
Subject: [Sip-implementors] NAT Friendly SIP
Hello,
I've read draft-rosenberg-sip-entfw-02.txt (NAT Friendly SIP), and I
like the recommendation of keeping TCP or TLS connections between the UA
and Registrar/Proxy open indefinitely (Section 4.2, page 9). This seems
like a simple, neat way to route SIP requests to a UA behind a NAT.
I don't need UDP or RTP solutions, which make up the hairy bulk of
draft-rosenberg-sip-entfw-02.txt. Also, I am in the fortunate position
of controlling the UAC and the UAS of my implementation, so I can pick
any scheme that works. However, I'd like to choose something that is
likely to be interoperable in the future.
What is the current state of draft-rosenberg-sip-entfw-02.txt? How
likely is it that persistent TCP/TLS connections will be rolled into
2543-bis?
thank you,
--
Kevin Packard
blackfrog software, inc.
603-424-3356
http://www.blackfrog.com
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
