Re: [P2PSIP] STUN/TURN role in P2PSIP

Hi, 

P2PSIP should define standard NAT tranversing architecture and mechanism. 

I 'd like to mention "The Effect of NATs on P2P SIP Overlay Architecture -- draft-matthews-p2psip-nats-and-overlays-00"
I think it should be a good start fot P2PSIP to define mechanisms of NAT traversing.

In that draft-rfc, it was recommended that ICE can be used for the exchange of media messages, 
and  the problem needs to solve is to finding a way for peers to exchange signaling messages.

I also would like to know if there is new version of the draft-rfc as it was expired on August 28, 2006.

Regards,

Gengyu

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JiangXingFeng" <jiang.x.f@huawei.com>
To: "'David A. Bryan'" <dbryan@sipeerior.com>
Cc: <p2psip@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] STUN/TURN role in P2PSIP

> Hi, David:
> 
>> So in my personal opinion, we should definitely be standardizing the
>> mechanism for NAT traversal. We want to be able to have a P2PSIP cloud
>> of devices from vendors X, Y, and Z, all of which together, and I
>> don't see how we do that without explicitly standardizing the NAT
>> traversal aspects.
> 
> In this respect, I can't agree with you any more. Because P2P overlay is a
> network whose underlying links are TCP/UDP or other connections in the IP
> network, NAT problem should be solved in order to make these connections
> active. Other than overlay connectivity, media connections should also
> address NAT problem in P2PSIP case. 
> 
> Regards!
> --
> Jiang XingFeng
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>