Subject: [Sipping] Nat scenarios: examples

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:05:04 +0200

Hi,
I'd like to have some clarification about 
draft-rosenberg-sipping-nat-scenarios-03, in particular about session 5.1 
"Intra-Enterprise Call".
I'd like to understand better the ICE methodology and reading the examples 
in this draft I have some doubts. 
Please would you like to help me? below some questions of mine:

in Figure 25 (A's unilateral allocations) in messages 6-7 there are TURN 
Alloc & TURN Resp with s=192.0.2.1:9989, d= 192.0.2.10:5556 and M= 
192.0.2.10:8076.......and in Figure 28 in messages 5-6 the STUN Bind 
(to/from STUN+TURN server) use d=192.0.2:9988 instead of 192.0.2.1:9989 
... Does the TURN server lock down the binding allocated to A in messages 
5-6 of Figure 28? 
in Figure 30, messages 4-5: the corporate NAT uses a mapping 
s=10.0.1.1:1010, d=192.0.2.10:8078 --> s=192.0.2.1:9992................... while in Figure 28, messages 4-5 , in the same 
Corporate NAT there is a mapping s=10.0.1.2:23766, d=192.0.2.10:8076--> s=192.0.2.1:9992. Is it correct ? Is it possible to bind the same address/port pair to two 
different source-destination pairs?
in Figure 30, message 14: why is d=192.0.2.1:9991 instead of 
d=192.0.2.1:9992? This question just thinking of binding locked down to A 
(compering messages 13-14 in figure 30 with messages 9-10 in figure 28). 
Furthermore, in figure 30 the message 15 uses a NAT's binding 
s=192.0.2.10:8076, d=192.0.2.1:9991 --> d=10.0.1.2:23766 (-->is it in 
contrast with the NAT's binding used in figure 28 for messages 4-5?)

Thanks in advance for your support.
Concita 

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