IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [SAFE] FW: [OPS-AREA] FW: [tsv-area] BOF requestunderconsideration: SAFE

Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> Mon, 15 October 2007 13:38 UTC

Return-path: <safe-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhQ9P-00044I-BK; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:31 -0400
Received: from safe by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IhQ9O-00040B-3h for safe-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhQ9D-0003hn-Oo for safe@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:19 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhQ97-0000ZX-C7 for safe@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:19 -0400
Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l9FDbomM016755; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:38:04 +0300
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:37:51 +0300
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:37:52 +0300
Received: from esdhcp04051.research.nokia.com ([172.21.40.51]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:37:51 +0300
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com>
Organization: Nokia TP-SP-SWD
To: ext Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [SAFE] FW: [OPS-AREA] FW: [tsv-area] BOF requestunderconsideration: SAFE
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:38:28 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <470E262B.1080505@ericsson.com> <200710121159.41676.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> <0dfa01c80cf3$89063210$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0dfa01c80cf3$89063210$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200710151638.28827.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2007 13:37:51.0129 (UTC) FILETIME=[94EA5090:01C80F30]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Cc: safe@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: safe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Self-Address Fixing Evolution <safe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe>, <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/safe>
List-Post: <mailto:safe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe>, <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: safe-bounces@ietf.org

Le Friday 12 October 2007 20:15:48 ext Dan Wing, vous avez écrit :
> But, thinking aloud:  after Teredo qualification the Teredo client
> could send a STUN packet to a STUN server (running on the same host
> it ran its Teredo qualification against), and get that STUN packet
> tagged.  So long as the UDP packets to those different UDP ports
> were routed the same, the same firewalls would be traversed.

Yes, but that adds a dependency on an otherwise not needed server only for the 
sake of STUN control.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont


_______________________________________________
SAFE mailing list
SAFE@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email