IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Thu, 29 November 2012 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B46521F89E9 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:39:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DmOSnnfS8n0v for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2A221F89DD for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so15930789ieb.31 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=nwntGIRMH0WuL52L6Pkoz9G8RHY+OXFf4vHiAmg+Dvs=; b=YPUP0V7vLI+/WpU65g2xc8rR+ORNINdouKStuLhQ/ruQmZOON5ifuqci1omEMvIQet tyz9iILsX/nUZR+UzLiPtDRf/toiNEpKDlMXz6oToPiOofnbjBZ3hBBn0S0b8sk1MpCS LW0PzPsIId/luk9iGvI0Hxcp5LJhiVn+L7Qof1S7gxYqJ0EE4w8mStvR1svgXdon6/mZ Ni5fWRJ81QqYYsJUPecX1xMgeQ7PW0YE5Dra2fVbu6xaWhmVtAEQpOcH6JbGlkTmige7 Wy3+rtNllaiNu2XjktevRmPLBl7VHhqg64fDUIkFSmzwxlsI+YpaehXaf1wyN43fV9ty mp4A==
Received: by 10.50.37.133 with SMTP id y5mr22703633igj.8.1354199961092; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-165-144.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.165.144]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hg2sm7308121igc.3.2012.11.29.06.39.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50B77396.6020901@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:39:18 -0500
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <CCD911B9.C3CA%repenno@cisco.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041761F4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E98AB1548@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E98AB1548@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121129-0, 29/11/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:39:22 -0000

I could add that back when we did the MIDCOM work, we included this 
capability in the MIDCOM semantics. For instance, see section 2.3.5 of 
RFC 5198. It seemed like an obvious requirement at the time, because 
VoIP was a major driver for a lot of what was going on.

On 29/11/2012 2:17 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Below some answers for the questions raised for this draft.
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la
>> part de Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
>> Envoyé : lundi 26 novembre 2012 15:36
>> À : pcp@ietf.org
>> Objet : [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012)
>>
>> FRI 1120-1330 (note new end time) =================================
>>
>>
>> Reserving N and N+1 Ports with PCP: Preserving Parity & Contiguity
>> draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp                          (10, Jaqueline
>> Queiroz)
>>
>> Stuart Cheshire: This seems wrong for PCP to take on additional
>> responsibility
>> for the sake of a single legacy protocol
>>
>> Dan Wing: We should ask the SIP WG what they think.
>
> Med: The procedure is not specific to SIP/SDP, it is even valid for non-sdp protocols. Are you suggesting we send a message to mmusic WG for instance?
>
>>
>> Stuart Cheshire: NAT-PMP and IGD don't do this today, so how
>> "essential"
>> can it
>> be?
>
> Med: Is this really a reason to not do it for PCP?
>
>   How do even/odd SIP devices work today? Why is it
>> "essential" that PCP
>> give
>> them something new, which they currently manage without?
>
> Med: What we are proposing in this draft is very very simple. If this option is not supported, we will continue with current practices (which have many drawbacks):
>
> * enable an ALG in the NAT (I'm more concerned about the CGN case)
> * or enabled some mechanism in the service side (e.g., SBC, Proxy Server)
>
> The proposed PCP option allows
>
> * to remove any service-specific ALG handling RTP/RTCP traversal from the CGN/NAT
> * Simplify the service access point (e.g., SBC): no need for hosted nat traversal
> * For the SIP case, there is even no need to use symmetric SIP, Symmetric RTP, etc.
> * No issue with unidirectional media sessions
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email