Re: [XCON] Fwd: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs

Just an FYI that this is the Transport Area mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsv-area/current/maillist.html

And, not the TSV Area WG mailing list.

The Transport Area ML seems to have a fairly light load, so shouldn't be too
painful if you want to subscribe to follow the discussion.

Mary.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <
Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have requested feedback on the BFCP over UDP issue to the transport
> community (see email below). Please, follow the discussions on the TSV
> area mailing list.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: How to transport BFCP in the presence of NATs
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:00:37 +0200
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
> To: tsv-area@ietf.org <tsv-area@ietf.org>
>
> Folks,
>
> BFCP (Binary Floor Control Protocol), defined in RFC 4582, runs between
> a client and a floor control server. Generally, the floor control server
> has a public IP address. The client establishes a TCP connection towards
> the floor control server so that, even if the client is behind a NAT,
> everything works.
>
> However, in some existing deployment scenarios the floor control server
> functionality is implemented in an endpoint, which may be behind a NAT.
> A typical session between two endpoints in these scenarios consist of a
> BFCP connection and one or more media streams (e.g., audio and video)
> between them. In this type of scenario, NAT traversal becomes a problem.
>
> Existing deployments implement different approaches to address the fact
> that the floor control server is not directly reachable. One of these
> approaches consists of transporting BFCP over UDP instead of over TCP
> (this approach is documented in the draft below). In this way, the
> endpoints can use ICE to find connectivity between them.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp/
>
> An alternative approach would be to still use TCP as a transport and use
> ICE TCP. However, the success rate of ICE TCP is not high enough at this
> point. Yet another alternative would be to tunnel BFCP over TCP over UDP.
>
> The XCON WG is aware of the guidelines given in RFC 5405 but would like
> to ask the transport community for further guidance on this issue.
>
> Note that this is actually a general issue that will affect any protocol
> for which TCP would be the natural transport but that would need to run
> between endpoints in NATted environments. RELOAD
> (draft-ietf-p2psip-base) would be an example of a similar protocol
> (which currently intends to use ICE TCP).
>
> Given that this issue appear to be more general than BFCP and may affect
> other protocols, we would appreciate to get input on how to proceed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>