Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] Where we are with draft-audet-nat-behave

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:27:57 -0700 (PDT)

Good point.

Of course, the other alternative is not to talk about it at all..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:54
> To: Audet, Francois [SC100:9T51:EXCH]; 'Melinda Shore'
> Cc: 'Behave'
> Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] Where we are with draft-audet-nat-behave
> 
> 
> >>> > 6 - From San Diego: State that one of the goals is to lessen the
> >>> >     dependence on Media Relays.
> >>
> >> Meh.  I'd try to keep this from being too voice-ish.  Media relays 
> >> are an instance of a broader class of problem, which is the 
> >> (perceived) need to introduce new devices and functions 
> into networks 
> >> in order to work around problems introduced by NAT.  Other 
> >> applications, notably online gaming and peer-to-peer applications, 
> >> have the same problem. I'd prefer to see this broadened.
> >
> > OK. What about just talking about "relays" in a very general way?
> 
> Be careful that you don't define a SIP Proxy or DNS server as 
> a 'relay' -- unless that's your intent.
> 
> -d
> 
>

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:24:14 -0700 (PDT)

I propose the following wording:

    A NAT device compliant with this document will not
    need an external UDP relay devices solely for UDP
    traversal of the NAT device.

SIP proxies and DNS servers don't exist solely for UDP traversal of NATs.

However, I suppose one could argue that user-facing media relay exists for
purposes other than NAT traversal.  Can anyone enumerate those other
purposes?

-d

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:26 AM
To: 'Dan Wing'; 'Melinda Shore'
Cc: 'Behave'
Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] Where we are with draft-audet-nat-behave

Good point.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:49:17 -0700 (PDT)

inline.

Dan Wing wrote:

However, I suppose one could argue that user-facing media relay exists for
purposes other than NAT traversal.  Can anyone enumerate those other
purposes?
They are often used for not-so-nice things, primarily lawful intercept. 
However, I dont think we need to go into those other reasons at all. I 
believe you have captured it correctly - the objective is not to require 
yet another intermediary device *solely* for the purposes of traversing 
the nat. If one needs to be there for other reasons, that another story 
entirely and outside of the scope of this document.

-Jonathan R.

--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:06:25 -0700 (PDT)

> They are often used for not-so-nice things, primarily lawful intercept. 

draft-baker-slem-architecture-02.txt is a superior way to provide LI,
and can perform LI for all services -- not just for cooperative voice 
services that go through a media relay in the (in)appropriate country 
that wants a wiretap.

> entirely and outside of the scope of this document.

Thanks,
-d

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:16:55 -0700 (PDT)

Dan Wing wrote:

However, I suppose one could argue that user-facing media relay 
exists for
purposes other than NAT traversal.  Can anyone enumerate those other
purposes?
They are often used for not-so-nice things, primarily lawful intercept. 

draft-baker-slem-architecture-02.txt is a superior way to provide LI,
and can perform LI for all services -- not just for cooperative voice 
services that go through a media relay in the (in)appropriate country 
that wants a wiretap.
I agree. However, the question wasnt whether or not I think LI should be 
done in one way or another. The question was whether there were ever 
reasons why someone might want a relay besides nat traversal. I think 
the answer is yes, but I still believe the question is moot as far as 
this document is concerned. I am fine with the statement that our 
objective is to eliminate the need to install a packet relay solely for 
the purpose of nat traversal.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:06:17 -0700 (PDT)

> reasons why someone might want a relay besides nat traversal.

Sure.

> I think

Thanks,
-d