RE: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 18:09 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:08:09 -0700
Message-ID: <E1CBF4C7095A3D4CAAAEAD09FBB8E08C01A57AB5@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <19536.20606.137749.723099@irtcluster02.cs.columbia.edu>
Thread-Topic: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs
Thread-Index: Acsua96rwcWcNZ2bTNiZj/p78OzJEQAE+Yxg
References: <21082_1279540847_ZZ0L5T0065P0196R.00_10048_1279540844_4C443E6C_10048_295_1_4C443E65.2050109@ericsson.com><4C4FF948.1080703@tkk.fi> <4C502601.10607@netlab.tkk.fi> <19536.20606.137749.723099@irtcluster02.cs.columbia.edu>
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: lennox@cs.columbia.edu, Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Precedence: list

Very well put. I agree.

Cheers,
Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of lennox@cs.columbia.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:45 AM
> To: Joerg Ott
> Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs
> 
> On Wednesday, July 28 2010, "Joerg Ott" wrote to "Jukka Manner,
tsv-area@ietf.org" saying:
> 
> > this should be the preferred approach rather than doing a special
> > version of every application protocol to also run over UDP -- which
> > would just be calling for trouble, IMHO.
> 
> Do you mean specifically GUT, or generally something that allows
tunneling
> of TCP over UDP?  Other options in that space would be some sort of
> peer-to-peer Teredo, or draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp.  Each of these
makes
> different choices about the tradeoff between generality and overhead,
and
> it's not clear to me which would be the best option for this
functionality.
> 
> The concern for BFCP specifically is that these ideas are all
currently, at
> best, individual author drafts, which would need not only to be
standardized
> but also to have documents written defining their use in SDP <proto>
fields
> and ICE candidate addresses.
> 
> Given how long this discussion has been going on already, I don't
think
> anyone imagines this would be a quick process.  The community that
uses BFCP
> is running into problems with peer-to-peer TCP communication in their
> currently deployed networks, and the feeling among much of this
community is
> that progressing draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp would be a much more
> expedious process than getting consensus on a generic TCP-over-UDP
> mechanism.
> 
> That said, I agree that having a general mechanism would be greatly
> preferable, and going forward we'd be much better off if we starting
having
> serious discussions of this mechanism rather than having to revisit
this
> problem for all the protocols that come along in the future.  (And if
it
> does manage to progress quickly, but BFCP-over-UDP bogs down or runs
into
> trouble, the question of how to transmit BFCP could be revisited.)
> 
> --
> Jonathan Lennox
> lennox@cs.columbia.edu / jonathan@vidyo.com

How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Gonzalo Camarillo
RE: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs L.Wood
RE: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Dan Wing
Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Jukka Manner
Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Joerg Ott
Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs lennox
RE: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
Re: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs Tom Kristensen