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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sat, 02 February 2008 04:18 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 5851A28C229; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.512, 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 YrzVJONdDG+A; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7EE28C25A; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:18:30 -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 8B56B28C25A for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:18:28 -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 1a0p4b3hHI4e for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB3528C385 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,293,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="11122559"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2008 20:20:03 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m124K3in022311; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:20:03 -0800
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m124K21l016596; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 04:20:03 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'JiangXingFeng'" <jiang.x.f@huawei.com>, "'Bruce Lowekamp'" <lowekamp@sipeerior.com>
References: <2cf701c8654d$352a2220$c4f0200a@cisco.com> <003101c8654d$dee1b440$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:20:02 -0800
Message-ID: <2d7301c86552$e20262f0$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AchlTfItbldG6+pyQuCqsnYuV5hEPQABN52w
In-Reply-To: <003101c8654d$dee1b440$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 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??
>
> No, the NAT which the TURN server is behind.

Yes, I agree that needs to be tested.  Some sort of
qualification procedure is needed before a TURN server
advertises its transport address to the overlay.

-d

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