> * Publish open source code at Sourceforge.net or similar, > * Publish a test tool as well, > * Gather and publish the results, possibly involving SIPit or another, > * Perfect the OS code and the protocol until it works OK. > > This has been done for "Hole Punching for P2P" in > http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
Heuh, no. This is just "exploratory concept" stuff, certainly not an interoperable protocol specification. And if the proponents of this alternative hole punching didn't propose a draft at IETF when we starting working on this back in 2001, it seems to me that it's too late. > My assumption is that hole punching is much more effective > for P2PSIP and I have copied the P2PSIP WG on this. The ratio > of messages is probably 5:1 or higher for ICE vs. hole > punching and this is critical when routing a P2PSIP message > over an overlay in 5-10 hops. Of course I cannot prove it > since as yet ICE cannot be measured. Well, your assumption may be wrong, especially in the absence of a specification for this alternative hole punching technique. The other thing I find funny in here is that the alternative hole punching techique as described on the web site uses a centralize server common to BOTH ends to relay the address, while ICE does not (i.e., each end can use their own STUN server). In other words, the major difference between ICE and the alternative-hole- punching technique seems to be that alternative-hole-punching assumes both ends use the same STUN server, which makes the rest of the exchange simpler (the "magic box" architectural concept is always handy). Ironically, this seems to me to be LESS usable in a global network where you wont't use centralize servers, especially for p2psip. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
