>>So, does implementing 'rport' will add value to my SIP Stack core?
1. It might be useful for a SIP receiving server to know that you
support rport (but this is arguable)
If it knows you support rport, it can then safely send responses
back on the "source port".
(For best interop anyway, SIP stacks should be able to send and
receive on the same UDP port.)
2. If your SIP stack is to be used in a SIP server, rport is very useful
since
many SIP clients use it (and they might not have STUN).
3. And as you say, STUN won't work across symmetric NAT.
point 1 I'm not so sure about but points 2 and 3 make rport useful
Regards
Attila
________________________________
From: KEERTHI KUMAR [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 24 November 2009 11:00
To: [email protected]; Attila Sipos
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] [RPort] Request to know unique use case
of rport
Hi Attila,
Firsly thanks for your response; in my current setup, the
application using my SIP Stack has the support of STUN client.
As per my current info, STUN supports for 3 types of NAT's (i.e. Full
Cone, Restricted Address Cone and Port restricted Cone NATs) and it does
not support for Symmetric NAT's.
But when a n/w device hosting Symmetric NAT functionality (say Router)
is deployed, that generally have Virtual Server or DMZ support embedded
with it, which hides Symmetric NAT problems and functions as Full Cone
NAT. So, STUN can be used.
So, does implementing 'rport' will add value to my SIP Stack core?
Thanks,
T. Keerthi Kumar
--- On Tue, 24/11/09, Attila Sipos <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Attila Sipos <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] [RPort] Request to know unique
use case of rport
To: "KEERTHI KUMAR" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 24 November, 2009, 3:56 PM
STUN doesn't work for all NAT types, I believe rport does.
rport is a very simple mechanism without very low overhead for
achieving
simple NAT traversal without requiring a separate protocol such
as STUN
which requires a STUN client and STUN server.
rport's use cases are not unique but for UDP SIP signalling, it
is the
most efficient way of NAT traversal.
Regards
Attila
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
<http://in.mc79.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sip-implementors-boun...@li
sts.cs.columbia.edu>
[mailto:[email protected]
<http://in.mc79.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sip-implementors-boun...@li
sts.cs.columbia.edu> ] On Behalf Of KEERTHI KUMAR
Sent: 24 November 2009 10:21
To: [email protected]
<http://in.mc79.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
olumbia.edu>
Cc: [email protected]
<http://in.mc79.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>
Subject: [Sip-implementors] [RPort] Request to know unique use
case of rport
Hi All,
Myself Keerthi Kumar, currently planning to implement
'rport' support in the SIP Stack using RFC 3581. But, now i am stuk at
finding a Valid use case that 'rport' solves and leads over STUN or
other NAT traversal techniques.
So, i request you to please suggest me few use cases of 'rport'.
Thanks,
T. Keerthi Kumar
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo!
Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
<http://in.mc79.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
olumbia.edu>
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
________________________________
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_yyi_1/*http://in.yahoo.com/> .
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
