Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-jennings-midcom-stun-results-00.txt]

On Friday 13 February 2004 08:48 am, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> A way the IETF can help is to collect recommendations for NATs. There was
> such an effort long time ago
> (http://www.iptel.org/ietf/firewall/nat/draft-ietf-mmusic-natreq4udp-00.txt
>), I maintain a very similar list as well (don't be silly, keep NAT bindings
> for a while, allow  hairpinning, try to preserve port numbers, try to use
> stateless binding allocation algorithms).

FYI, Pyda Srisuresh, Dan Kegel and I have for a while been working on a 
document whose sole purpose is to collect precisely these things - general 
recommendations for NATs, and general (protocol-independent) recommendations 
for applications trying to traverse NATs.  It's already gone through a few 
versions; the latest one recently came back from first review by the IESG, 
and we're hoping to have another, near-final update before long.  The most 
recent version is available here:

	http://midcom-p2p.sourceforge.net/draft-ford-midcom-p2p-01.txt

Please let me know if you find inaccuracies or have other comments/additions.  
Thanks!

Bryan