[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: NAT Traversal
Ok, that's good info. It seems more appropriate to place STUN with
midcom than with SIP, where I believe it originated?
It'll be interesting to see what the protocol to allow NATed
servers will enable / permit.
Thanks,
Henrik
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> At 08:52 AM 3/6/02 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> >Yes, traversal solutions through existing NATs does not seem to
> >be in their [midcom] charter.
>
> It is, actually, but the revised charter hasn't been posted.
> The work is being referred to informally as "pre-midcom," and
> includes STUN and a yet-to-be-named protocol to allow NATted
> servers.
>
> Please note that in the case of both midcom and pre-midcom we're
> trying to allow NATted endpoints to find their public addresses
> so that they can embed correct information in packet payloads
> (for protocols like SIP, H.323, RTSP, etc.). We're *not* assuming
> that the endpoint is going to dink with the IP header or that
> the IP header is not going to be touched by the NAT. We're up a
> layer or two.
>
> Melinda