Subject: RE: [Sip] Last Call: DHCPv6 Options for SIP Servers to Proposed Standard

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:14:45 -0700

> In theory, I agree with you Christian, in that the whole notion of a
> visited proxy is silly; after all, when I'm in a hotel, I still
connect
> to the same mail server back in my "home", and not a local hotel mail
> server which I discovered through DHCP.
>
> However, for communications services, local outbound proxies native to
a
> visited domain do and will exist for many reasons (for example, local
> dialing plans, 911, local services, etc.), only one of which is
firewall
> traversal.

I don't think that the "firewall traversal" requirement actually applies
to hotel connections. The hotel connection supposedly gives you a high
speed Internet access, and they often charge you good money for the
service. The hotel has no good reason to check whether you use TCP or
UDP, or for that matter IPSEC -- and since we are speaking of a DHCPv6
option, we have to assume that we are using IPv6, and that there is no
NAT to go through. In these conditions, the only real reason for the
local proxy is a desire to control some specific applications -- very
possibly, make you pay phone calls by the minute. As you say, this is
silly, and I don't see why we should tweak our standards encourage such
silliness.

Now, if what you want is to discover the local 911 service, you probably
don't want to use an insecure channel. Which would prevent using DHCPv6,
since it is not secure in a roaming scenario...

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:10:34 -0500

Christian said:
> I don't think that the "firewall traversal" requirement 
> actually applies to hotel connections. The hotel connection 
> supposedly gives you a high speed Internet access, and they 
> often charge you good money for the service. The hotel has no 
> good reason to check whether you use TCP or UDP, or for that 
> matter IPSEC -- and since we are speaking of a DHCPv6 option, 
> we have to assume that we are using IPv6, and that there is 
> no NAT to go through. In these conditions, the only real 
> reason for the local proxy is a desire to control some 
> specific applications -- very possibly, make you pay phone 
> calls by the minute. As you say, this is silly, and I don't 
> see why we should tweak our standards encourage such silliness.

Where are you finding hotels with broadband that don't require use of
their NAT box and HTTP proxy? I've never seen a hotel with a truly open
internet connection.

-
Dean

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:57:35 -0400

> their NAT box and HTTP proxy? I've never seen a hotel with a truly open
Uh, right here. I'm using one to send this message. For $9.95 a day you get 
a NAT'ed address and their HTP proxy. For $14.95 you get a public address 
and open access.

What's your point?
> Dean

-----------------------------------------------------------
David R. Oran                   Phone/Fax: +1 978 264 2048
Cisco Systems                   VoIP: +1 408 571 4576
7 Ladyslipper Lane              Email: [email-masked]
Acton, MA 01720