[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