Re: [mif] MIF at the application level

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Marc Petit-Huguenin escribió:
>
>
>   
>>>   Before NICE, people tried to find the best route by
>>> trying to guess what type of NAT was in front of the host, which is
>>> a problem that cannot be solved.  I feel that choosing the right
>>> local address is a similar kind of problem that NICE can solve at
>>> the application level.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> while the problem maybe similar, my take is that there are much simpler
>> solutions that trying every address pair
>>     
>
> This is what people said for the discovery of NAT type, hence RFC
> 3489 - and it's subsequent deprecation - so, we'll see.
>
>   
fair enough

> Do you have any pointer to this solutions?
>
>   

Well, since there are many problems related to multiple interfaces as 
described in blanchet's draft, i guess the solutions will be a set of tools.
I am still reading all the drafts on solutions, but what seems clear is 
that there are devices with multiple interfaces today and they seem to 
work somehow. So, imho the most interesting is to understand first how 
they currently do it and see if additional mechanisms are needed, or by 
simply documenting this, we are ok.
So, in this perspective a good place to start is 
draft-mrw-mif-current-practices-01

regards, marcelo

>>> The idea behind NICE is that the local address to use is the one
>>> that have connectivity with the destination to reach.  That seems
>>> obvious but that was kind of a new concept at the time (and kudos to
>>> Jonathan for this work).
>>>   
>>>       
>> well, seems to be very similar to ICE :-)
>>     
>
> NICE = ICE without SIP.  I said NICE and not ICE because the IETF is
> full of literalists who would ask why I want to use SIP...
>
>   
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>>     
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> regards, marcelo
>>>>
>>>> Marc Petit-Huguenin escribió:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> I read the 4 documents listed in the agenda for the MIF BOF, and I
>>>>> am surprised to see very few discussion about the application
>>>>> behavior in presence of multiple interfaces.  The documents talk
>>>>> mostly about operating system configuration but, in the spirit of
>>>>> the end to end argument, I do think that the final decision on what
>>>>> network to choose (when there is a choice) should be made by the
>>>>> application, with fallback to some automatic configuration when the
>>>>> application is not smart enough to do this.  NICE
>>>>> (draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip) is a very good example on how an
>>>>> application can choose between different networks and perhaps this
>>>>> draft, that does not seem to be maintained currently, could be part
>>>>> of the deliverables of the future MIF WG.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>