Re: TURN returning multiple MAPPED-ADDRESSes

Ping...

Does anyone on this list have any comments regarding this? Should I repost 
this on another list?

Jon

On Wednesday 22 September 2004 03:40 pm, Jon Ringle wrote:
> If TURN provided a mechanism to return multiple MAPPED-ADDRESSes (for each
> address that the TURN server knows is a potential address that a client
> could use to reach it) from a single Allocate request, these are the pros
> and cons that I see:
>
> Pros:
> 1) It increases the likelihood that a remote address (RA) will be
> successful in contacting one of the public address (PA) (aka
> MAPPED-ADDRESS) associated with the source address (SA). This solves the
> problem of reaching a TURN server behind a "no hairpin" NAT from a client
> that is behind the same NAT.
>
> 2) It provides a shorter route thru the TURN server by avoiding a hairpin
> hop on a NAT that does allow hairpinning.
>
> Cons:
> 1) When an ICE enabled client gets multiple addresses from a TURN server,
> it may not be clear which address should be used for the benefit of non-ICE
> peers. The TURN server configuration may be able to provide a priority hint
> to the ICE client for each address it returns.
>
> For instance, a TURN server administrator may know that all SIP devices on
> one side of a NAT are all ICE-enabled. If this is true, then the ICE client
> should set the m= and c= SDP parameters to the address that has a greater
> likelihood of having non-ICE enabled clients. The TURN Allocate response
> could convey this information in some way to help the ICE enabled client
> with this descision.
>
> The problem could also be worked around by changing the network topology,
> so that the TURN server is not located behind a "no hairpin" NAT, but
> located on the public side of the NAT with it's own public IP address.
>
> Jon
>
> On Wednesday 22 September 2004 12:47 am, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> > Discussions have occurred on this list, yes. I'm behind on mail as
> > always and will try and respond shortly.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan R.
> >
> > Jon Ringle wrote:
> > > Is this the wrong list to pose this question? If so, could someone
> > > please point me to the appropriate mailing list.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > midcom mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom