RE: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 25 January 2008 17:31 UTC

Return-path: <p2psip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JISP3-0005ya-II; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:31:45 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JISP1-0005y8-Vv for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:31:43 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JISP1-0004PR-Em for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:31:43 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2008 09:31:42 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0PHVgng011824; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:31:42 -0800
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0PHVYj5018788; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:31:34 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'JiangXingFeng'" <jiang.x.f@huawei.com>, "'Bruce Lowekamp'" <lowekamp@sipeerior.com>
References: <0dc701c85f05$d23f7b30$44a36b80@cisco.com> <003301c85f32$f9474460$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:31:33 -0800
Message-ID: <174701c85f78$24a386b0$44a36b80@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AchdzJ90kFg6Xq4fTZOyCgPVF+N/zwAif+RQABT2TDAAEsYpMAAECZOQAArhadAAEYVQEA==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <003301c85f32$f9474460$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1405; t=1201282302; x=1202146302; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[P2PSIP]=20Choice=20of=20STUN=20peer=20 or=20TURN=20peer |Sender:=20; bh=qg1qjVflBguVxEhsHtFxMLoQOjPfRuhcP62qOfo0u60=; b=iXuCcP4DanSQC/voPm+PV8QgaoT5eleTJLULWgUVolzKerZ5Sf49OMOmsu iivfnERSgG0MX3UJ+YOHZJ0cVv0VKKpi+DsN0MAV9z8S0LJhFJNAhekBjqDI R1ulCjekCO;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: 'P2PSIP Mailing List' <p2psip@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JiangXingFeng [mailto:jiang.x.f@huawei.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:17 AM
> To: 'Dan Wing'; 'Bruce Lowekamp'
> Cc: 'P2PSIP Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I'd like to see your proposed method works, because it could 
> make full use
> of decentralized resource in the overlay to serve each other. 

It seems useful to phase this for p2p-sip:  initially, just have
p2p-sip nodes advertise their TURN servers if the p2p-sip node
is not behind a NAT.

Once we know how to have p2p-sip TURN servers qualify their 
NAT's p2p-friendlyness, then can have p2p-sip nodes advertise 
those TURN servers, too.  If we make fast progress on a document
that describes the qualification procedure, and running code
that shows it works, we should be good to go.  No?


> Regards!
> 
> JiangXingFeng
> 
> > 
> > Yep.  That is part of the qualification a p2p-sip TURN server
> > would have to do before it declares itself a TURN server.
> > 
> I'm just worried about that rare end-point independent 
> filtering NAT exists
> according the data in the paper 
> http://saikat.guha.cc/pub/imc05-tcpnat.pdf.
> It said the proportion of the end-point independent filtering 
> NAT is about 5.8%

That paper is for TCP.  I thought the primary concern here, for
TURN, was UDP?

-d


_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip