Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean
> Willis
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:36 PM
> To: Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)
>
> One might argue that we know how to do NAT without ALG -- we use ICE
> to discover candidates for the offer/answer, and the media finds the
> path that works using STUN probes.

ICE can't find such candidates in some cases, as I've stated before on this mailing list.  The problem is the candidates need to change based on where the call gets routed to.  Not to mention there may never be a single publicly reachable IP used in the media path.


> Topology-hiding is another question. Does it benefit the Internet
> architecture? Do we need to warp our protocols to allow it?

The question may be more: do we need to make our protocols disallow it?


> Do we need SDP editing to allow these functions, or is there a cleaner
> way to do it?

Define "cleaner".  Do you mean simpler, or do you mean more architecturally pure from the IAB's perspective?  The two are probably mutually exclusive.  :)


> Do such modifications break RFC 4474?

Yes, and they've been documented and discussed before, ad nauseam.  Virtually every piece of the message signed by 4474 is mucked with by some device or other, with the exception of the Date header.

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip