Subject: RE: [Sipping] Making SBCs more transparent for NAT traversal

From: "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:39:41 +0100

>>I asked how the NAT would know which packages are "keepalive" ones. 
>>Even if you standardize some kind of "keepalive protocol", the NAT 
>>still only sees IP packages, doesn't it?
> 
>My guess is the cleverness would be something like assuming 
>empty UDP packets are keepalives, or similar such guesses.

Yes. But, the NAT would have to figure out that the package is an empty
UDP packet in the first place. I believe that is more than a NAT does
today, but I may of course be wrong.

>However, this is where things usually go horribly wrong. I've seen
people spend hours and hours debugging what later 
>turns out to be a firewall being "clever".

And, isn't "clever" boxes in the network something that only SIP
breaking bellheads in the evil world of walled gardens would want? ;)

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 03:53:37 +0200

> breaking bellheads in the evil world of walled gardens would want? ;)

yes, but i'm now trying to fix bellheads mobile network that is not able
to receive packets without eating all battery.

-- juha

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 03:53:37 +0200

-- juha