On 18-Jul-07, at 21:19 , Philip Matthews wrote:
On 18-Jul-07, at 15:31 , Henry Sinnreich wrote:
Phil,
In my view, ICE _is_ a "Hole Punching Technique".
Yes, you absolutely right, though the devil is in the details.
We cannot go here into a shoot-out between hole punching or other
mentioned on the list vs. ICE, but there seems to be a huge
difference
in effectiveness and performance.
What precise algorithm are you talking about when you say this?
As far as I am concerned, ICE is simply a well-documented hole
punching algorithm.
It differs from others that I have seen written up in the following
ways:
- ICE has the concept of peer reflexive addresses, which other hole-
punching techniques that I have seen do not;
- ICE has the concept of controlling/controlled endpoint, which
gives the controller additional flexibility in choosing a path;
- ICE does NOT have the concept of port prediction, which some
other techniques do (e.g., Saikat's TCP work).
I should add that ICE also handles:
- the case of multi-homed peers,
- peers that want to exchange multiple media streams,
- media streams which are composed of multiple components (e.g. RTP
and RTCP).
These are cases that a solution for SIP needs to handle, but I have
not seen discussed in other proposals.
- Philip
_______________________________________________
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
