IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [AVT] Re: RTP/RTCP Port Sharing -> SCTP

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com> Wed, 18 July 2001 20:59 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA01701; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:59:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02230; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:59:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02202 for <avt@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:59:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail5.microsoft.com (mail5.microsoft.com [131.107.3.121]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA01592 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 157.54.7.67 by mail5.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:17:00 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Received: from red-imc-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.107]) by inet-imc-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:17:00 -0700
Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.82]) by red-imc-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:16:59 -0700
Received: from win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.134]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:15:56 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5683.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: [AVT] Re: RTP/RTCP Port Sharing -> SCTP
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:15:55 -0700
Message-ID: <F66A04C29AD9034A8205949AD0C9010418BED2@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [AVT] Re: RTP/RTCP Port Sharing -> SCTP
Thread-Index: AcEPpgAx0QEpW8NJRhaRXBX/kPZuzQAH6Giw
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>, Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>, "Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert" <rfairlie@nuera.com>
Cc: Leonid Rosenboim <Leonid@BitBand.COM>, Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live.com>, avt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2001 20:15:56.0059 (UTC) FILETIME=[739B66B0:01C10FC6]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id QAA02204
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

By the way, I have published two related drafts:

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-natreq4udp-00.txt
And
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-sdp4nat-00.txt

The second one deals with the problem of port mappings by NAT, which
will break the 2n, 2n+1 rule of RTP. I believe that we have to relax
this rule, and that we have to find a way to document both the RTP & the
RTCP ports in SDP (that is, if they are separate.) We should spend some
time on the subject in London.

-- Christian Huitema

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:19 AM
> To: 'Michael Thomas'; Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
> Cc: 'Leonid Rosenboim'; Ross Finlayson; avt@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [AVT] Re: RTP/RTCP Port Sharing -> SCTP
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mat@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:05 AM
> > To: Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
> > Cc: 'Leonid Rosenboim'; Ross Finlayson; avt@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [AVT] Re: RTP/RTCP Port Sharing -> SCTP
> > 
> > 
> > Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert writes:
> >  > 	c) only one endpoint needs to have a globally reachable 
> > address for
> >  > guaranteed bidirectional transport
> > 
> >    This seems like it defers the harder problem for about
> >    10e-9s. If Valhala is gone and the ascendency NATs
> >    asured, then double NAT's will be the norm.
> > 
> >    Then what?
> 
> Then you read draft-rosenberg-sip-entfw-02.txt, due out this 
> week, which explains how to handle this case.... :) The 
> mechanism in there uses bidirectional streams (which we call 
> symmetric) whenever only one side its natted, and otherwise 
> uses a network intermediary outside of the firewall when both 
> are behind nats that don't support Christian's 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-natreq4ud
p-00.txt. When contacting this network intermediary, its still useful to
use symmetric RTP.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email