Very well put. I agree. Cheers, Charles
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:45 AM > To: Joerg Ott > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs > > On Wednesday, July 28 2010, "Joerg Ott" wrote to "Jukka Manner, [email protected]" saying: > > > this should be the preferred approach rather than doing a special > > version of every application protocol to also run over UDP -- which > > would just be calling for trouble, IMHO. > > Do you mean specifically GUT, or generally something that allows tunneling > of TCP over UDP? Other options in that space would be some sort of > peer-to-peer Teredo, or draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp. Each of these makes > different choices about the tradeoff between generality and overhead, and > it's not clear to me which would be the best option for this functionality. > > The concern for BFCP specifically is that these ideas are all currently, at > best, individual author drafts, which would need not only to be standardized > but also to have documents written defining their use in SDP <proto> fields > and ICE candidate addresses. > > Given how long this discussion has been going on already, I don't think > anyone imagines this would be a quick process. The community that uses BFCP > is running into problems with peer-to-peer TCP communication in their > currently deployed networks, and the feeling among much of this community is > that progressing draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp would be a much more > expedious process than getting consensus on a generic TCP-over-UDP > mechanism. > > That said, I agree that having a general mechanism would be greatly > preferable, and going forward we'd be much better off if we starting having > serious discussions of this mechanism rather than having to revisit this > problem for all the protocols that come along in the future. (And if it > does manage to progress quickly, but BFCP-over-UDP bogs down or runs into > trouble, the question of how to transmit BFCP could be revisited.) > > -- > Jonathan Lennox > [email protected] / [email protected]
