Re: H.248.NATTP2P

My comments below inline,
Albrecht

________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2011 13:34
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Megaco] H.248.NATTP2P

Hi,

I have two questions about H.248.NATTP2P

1) The scope description suggests that this recommendation applies to P2P networks. My understanding is that it also applies to any terminal to terminal traffic within a managed network without application-level intermediary. Is that correct?
[[Schwarz, Albrecht]] Perhaps yes, because that might be also a P2P scenario. The draft does not yet provide a link to the applied P2P definition in clause 3. More important in my opinion is the reference to the considered e2e model by Fig. 1.
Side question: what's the definition of an application-level intermediary? Or what kind of specific functios do you have in mind?

2) What is the relation with TCP stitching?
[[Schwarz, Albrecht]] I'm not aware of any definition for "TCP stitching", guess this is a marketing term used by a particular vendor.
Thus, I may just speculate:
Draft H.248.NATTP2P considers e2e scenarios with possible multiple interim H.248 IP-IP MGs, which lead to the requirement in assigning different role behaviours to the MGs, whereas your referred proprietary technology aims perhaps just a single NAT traversal entity in the bearer path. But I don't know ...


Bruno

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco