Re: [tram] Communication between app and network using STUN

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Wed, 12 February 2014 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3ACE1A08B1 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hadyENhKdgX5 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77E91A08AB for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id fa1so8886642pad.41 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gOGaHMXir0NYq5DVG31oX+31RUHrkw8exWqrr4nKurg=; b=Nss9fFD7q0/4yJnjwAIJIC1Kgaboe58FeM0HjxP75cACSRVAyMLKfHwPcZ4gVC50WD bpmXnF94vB3JCiHIah7fyIEYpGBzwR4m3wnMAudrILpB/vqs/MkM7baHpHCv0RtC+Hr9 Hyup8EQ1oxxE6cZmFHdaXOm9gHP65Asn9ArAs5zJ190p5MvkJb+tXJYCYdcIP+Xe0F4b TYLIpiZK3gh6XPmPpAdAjby04rBq5nkht18dyG6neEfaFO0i3HPImIUFUaGiTGHvxH6N 5aLblwsNvxKYtMrbRmfEk1f5+fr34M7QsY+W7J887x5O9yJpVv2x1XYPCu75AzzUMZSZ NdKA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.212.161 with SMTP id nl1mr182090pbc.142.1392196241186; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.147.131 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E1E13613-6E07-4E03-8AB4-6606D1511FC9@cisco.com>
References: <E1E13613-6E07-4E03-8AB4-6606D1511FC9@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:10:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CALDtMrJ2f53kKfLMuTB5zGThPXDFJ5VnPYK4MpatCzfbw7R8fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <palmarti@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1c89c69e38a04f231f2f1"
Cc: "Herb Wildfeuer (hwildfeu)" <hwildfeu@cisco.com>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] Communication between app and network using STUN
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:10:45 -0000

Question (or comment) on Section 6.3:

Can the application be behind a NAT ? Can a NAT be involved ? If yes, then
all applications behind that NAT may have the same IP address, from the
STUN message receiver point of view. Then how the Session ID and the
priority works in such a case ?

Oleg





On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) <
palmarti@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Tramsters,
>
> We published a draft today describing extensions to STUN that enables
> simple communication between the endpoint and the network.
>
>
> Name:           draft-martinsen-tram-discuss
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Differentiated prIorities and Status Code-points Using
> Stun Signalling (DISCUSS)
> Document date:  2014-02-12
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          13
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martinsen-tram-discuss/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-00
>
>
> The main goals for now:
>
>  - Make it easy for an application to communicate its intent to the
> network (QoE) without needing access to the lower layers of the IP stack.
> Sending a STUN packet would be an easy solution for the application.
> - Make it easy for the network to process information from the endpoint.
> STUN have nice characteristics that makes it easy for network elements to
> pick it up.
> - Create a tightly defined set of STUN attributes that does not leak
> unnecessary information.
>
> To describe the draft using established mechanisms; think of it as
> extended DSCP markings with ECN capabilities sent in-band using STUN.
>
> I realize the TRAM agenda is packet, but hopefully we would fine time to
> discuss if this is something useful that fits under the TRAM charter.
>
> .-.
> Pål-Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>