IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

JiangXingFeng <jiang.x.f@huawei.com> Sat, 02 February 2008 03:42 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 DA3153A69B7; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:42:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 BKRkJQNCTILs; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108103A69C5; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:42:40 -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 10B573A69C5 for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:42:38 -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 aCtfkl9Aoidm for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [61.144.161.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350A13A6944 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JVL003WVEDNWO@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:44:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JVL00K8YEDMD4@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:44:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j36340 ([10.164.9.45]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JVL00HJVEDMQG@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:44:10 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:44:10 +0800
From: JiangXingFeng <jiang.x.f@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <2cf701c8654d$352a2220$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
To: 'Dan Wing' <dwing@cisco.com>, 'Bruce Lowekamp' <lowekamp@sipeerior.com>
Message-id: <003101c8654d$dee1b440$2d09a40a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-index: AchhxwRiKwoxy6LaSZ6TgKaHnj8wdgC2F6bgABX7SuAAEF+0IAAEkfOgAABU/IAAAC/GAAAAJvXQ
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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email