Subject: [BEHAVE] Proposed WG milestone on choice of NAT traversal technique

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:17:33 -0400

On 11-Apr-07, at 20:42 , Dan Wing wrote:
>
> Also during the meeting there were some ideas around adding a new  
> milestone
> for a document which might discuss when an application might choose  
> UNSAF
> (STUN), Bonjour/UPnP, or other NAT traversal techniques.  If a  
> candidate
> document emerges we can consider creating such a milestone.
>

I would like to suggest that
       http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-iab-nat-traversal- 
considerations-00.txt
is a good starting point for this milestone. This document was  
originally
an IAB-sponsored I-D, but was allowed to expire.

I believe this document needs work.
However, I like the classification scheme used in the document and  
believe that
a balanced discussion of the pros and cons of each technique using this
classification scheme would be very helpful.

I personally see a frequent need for this document. We are seeing  
more and more
protocols that want to add NAT Traversal, and people always ask: how  
should I
do this?

In fact, this topic came up once again just yesterday when someone  
asked me what
the transition scheme would be from an ICE-based scheme to a MIDCOM- 
based
scheme for NAT traversal.

- Philip

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:41:29 -0700

> scheme for NAT traversal.

Assuming the MIDCOM FW/NAT trusts the UA (or B2BUA), which as far as  
I can tell is the only deployable MIDCOM architecture, MIDCOM would  
be just another candidate address in the ICE lists. I don't think  
there would be a transition from ICE to MIDCOM. ICE is the approach  
by which you might be able to use MIDCOM alongside other things.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>