RE: Effectiveness of STUN protocol

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

 



> Christian Huitema wrote:
> STUN is indeed a great protocol, with all the right
> authors, but it makes a couple of assumptions about the
> type of NATs and about the structure of the network.

Indeed, but its assumptions are well in line with the predicted
clientele: home/soho.

We were talking about SIP; enterprises do not have too much of a problem
with SIP and NAT, because a) they have a somehow knowledgeable staff b)
they can deploy gateways/proxies/whatever at the edge of their network,
where NAT occurs. If SIPPhone and FWD can deploy SIP proxies, so can
Microsoft, Cisco, and a bunch of others. SIPPhone, FWD and consorts do
already connect together and there are beta tests to connect private
Call Manager domains to them.

Michel.




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]