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

[...]
At 04:01 PM 2/13/2004, Bryan Ford wrote:
> (don't be silly, keep NAT bindings
>> for a while, allow  hairpinning, try to preserve port numbers, try to use
>> stateless binding allocation algorithms).
>        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!

I don't think any item on my shopping list above introduces anything
new in addition to your Section 5. 

I just don't understand if there is not an overlap between your section
5.1 which mandates cone NATs and 5.3 which mandates preserving the
same translation packets with the same source address and port number.
Isn't that the same thing?

I'm not sure I like the dual-NAT-type behaviour suggested in 5.2. At least
I would have to understand how the application configuration process in
NAT would work (My midcom bias is that application awareness in
NATs is better avoided.)

-jiri