IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sat, 02 February 2008 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <p2psip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-p2psip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2psip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E061228C25A; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.581, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aLoQl2QXE592; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F153A69B7; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:37:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: p2psip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF2728C234 for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:37:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxCY3U1bCKVw for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAD528C227 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2008 19:39:26 -0800
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m123dQwR027972; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:39:26 -0800
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m123dPqX004928; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 03:39:25 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'JiangXingFeng' <jiang.x.f@huawei.com>, 'Bruce Lowekamp' <lowekamp@sipeerior.com>
References: <2c7901c8654b$9aaf2020$c4f0200a@cisco.com> <002e01c8654c$a0451160$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:39:24 -0800
Message-ID: <2cf701c8654d$352a2220$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AchhxwRiKwoxy6LaSZ6TgKaHnj8wdgC2F6bgABX7SuAAEF+0IAAEkfOgAABU/IAAAC/GAA==
In-Reply-To: <002e01c8654c$a0451160$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: 'P2PSIP Mailing List' <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Choice of STUN peer or TURN peer
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org

> > > As Bruce suggested that message 1 and 4 will be routed
> > > through the overlay.
> > 
> > I don't believe that will work; part of what causes TURN to
> > be an effective NAT relay is that the TURN client sends
> > a packet directly to the TURN server's publicly-routable
> > transport address.  The side effect of the TURN client
> > doing that is that the TURN client's (evil, nasty) NAT
> > opens pinholes to communicate bi-directionally with the
> > TURN server's transport address.
> 
> I agree with you. So I think we should also consider NAT's filtering
> behavior while we choose a peer to be a TURN server. 

The TURN client's NAT filtering behavior??

-d

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email