Subject: [BEHAVE] TURN : How can a client ask a TCP disconnection ?

From: "Gaël Bréard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:38:50 +0200

One simple question about TURN :

Imagine the case where a TURN client has allocated a TCP address (a TCP
server) on a TURN server.
Several remote peers have established a connection on this allocated port.

And now, the client wants to disconnect one of them (and only one).
I did not found any request to do that.

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

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:53:13 +0300

> I did not found any request to do that.

It used to be so that you terminated the TCP connection. Multiple TCP 
connections per TURN session was then added, but remains buggy to this day.

As far as I understand, the current public draft is way out-of-sync with where 
the WG is heading anyway.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:06:49 -0400

> the WG is heading anyway.

Gaël:

Thanks for bring this up.
Remi is right in that TURN is undergoing major changes right now.  
There is a
design team that talks by conference call twice a week. We were  
hoping to have
a draft out by Oct 1, but that proved too ambitious with all the  
concerns that
people had, and so we are now just trying to get something out before  
the
next meeting. The problem is that people are now starting to look at  
ICE/STUN/TURN
as a general NAT traversal solution, and solutions that work well for  
SIP are
not always general enough.
For example, for SIP one can say that in most cases, there is only one
remote destination that one exchanges media with, and in the few  
cases this is
not true, it is reasonable to require the client to obtain a second  
TURN address.
However, this may or may not be a reasonable assumption in the  
general case.

So if you could wait just a few more weeks ...

- Philip