[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: mmusic - ICE draft-16: review and guidance for IPv6/IPv4 implementations

I have one very serious concern about this draft and the underlaying supposition as shown in the full title: Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols As explained in RFC4864 - Local Network Protection for IPv6 NAT is not to be encouraged, and has been removed from IPv6 intentionally. Thus your looking at the subset of IPv4 only or Ipv6 to IPv4 network considerations only. So you probably should read and reference this RFC. This being said this list has had some conversations about how to make just what you are talking about possible for the application layer. I suggest that you look at the thread common issues in BEHAVE and V6OPS (http://psg.com/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00254.html) for some of the items that were brought up as they seem to directly relate to your draft. 
Eric
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-16 Jean-Francois Mule writes: 
   The current draft for ICE is:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-16 
   As some of you are aware, the mmusic wg has completed an extended
WGLC on ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment). ICE is a protocol
designed to "guarantee" IP connectivity for media streams between hosts
that use an offer/answer mechanism such as the one used by SIP
implementations today (RFC 3264 - offer/answer in SDP).