Hi Jukka, the idea is to use ICE for NAT traversal. So, the approach you propose would be enough to allow using ICE to establish BFCP/TCP/UDP flows.
Thanks, Gonzalo On 28/07/2010 11:32 AM, Jukka Manner wrote: > Hi Gonzalo, > > Would our GUT-scheme be of any help here, in the BFCP over TCP over UDP? > We have an implementation out for Linux that works great, and it doesn't > require any changes to the tunnel protocol and application. People have > used GUT to tunnel various problematic protocols through NATs. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manner-tsvwg-gut-02 > > Yet, GUT is only meant to get "challenging" protocols through a legacy, > old, NAT. It doesn't introduce any full-fledged NAT-traversal signaling, > e.g., to get a hole for an incoming flow. > > cheers, > Jukka > > > > > On 07/19/2010 02:00 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Folks, >> >> BFCP (Binary Floor Control Protocol), defined in RFC 4582, runs between >> a client and a floor control server. Generally, the floor control server >> has a public IP address. The client establishes a TCP connection towards >> the floor control server so that, even if the client is behind a NAT, >> everything works. >> >> However, in some existing deployment scenarios the floor control server >> functionality is implemented in an endpoint, which may be behind a NAT. >> A typical session between two endpoints in these scenarios consist of a >> BFCP connection and one or more media streams (e.g., audio and video) >> between them. In this type of scenario, NAT traversal becomes a problem. >> >> Existing deployments implement different approaches to address the fact >> that the floor control server is not directly reachable. One of these >> approaches consists of transporting BFCP over UDP instead of over TCP >> (this approach is documented in the draft below). In this way, the >> endpoints can use ICE to find connectivity between them. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp/ >> >> An alternative approach would be to still use TCP as a transport and use >> ICE TCP. However, the success rate of ICE TCP is not high enough at this >> point. Yet another alternative would be to tunnel BFCP over TCP over UDP. >> >> The XCON WG is aware of the guidelines given in RFC 5405 but would like >> to ask the transport community for further guidance on this issue. >> >> Note that this is actually a general issue that will affect any protocol >> for which TCP would be the natural transport but that would need to run >> between endpoints in NATted environments. RELOAD >> (draft-ietf-p2psip-base) would be an example of a similar protocol >> (which currently intends to use ICE TCP). >> >> Given that this issue appear to be more general than BFCP and may affect >> other protocols, we would appreciate to get input on how to proceed. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >
