> -----Original Message----- > From: Chad Giffin [mailto:typosity@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:53 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: IETF > Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology > > > From: dwing@xxxxxxxxx > > To: typosity@xxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology > > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:57:18 -0700 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > >> Behalf Of Chad Giffin > >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:49 AM > >> To: IETF > >> Subject: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology > >> > >> June 18th, 1145h CDT > >> > >> To all members of the IETF mailing list; > >> > >> I have posted a description, twice, of the RNET protocol > >> to this mailing list. I have also provided some updates > >> concerning peer to peer connections between RNET Hosts. > >> > >> I have yet to receive /any/ response (other then an > >> email with an empty body) concerning by postings. > > > > Here is a response, which appeared to have been CC'd to you: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51774.html > > This message was actually posted by me :-) It was posted by Eric Burger. He wrote: *> From: eburger at standardstrack.com *> To: "Chad Giffin" <typosity at hotmail.com>, ietf at ietf.org *> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 21:49:24 +0000 *> *> So we have reinvented STUN? ... > > I agree with Eric; based on the description of RNET, it > > sounds much like STUN > > combined with a rendezvous protocol (e.g., SIP). RNET is > > also similar to HIP's NAT traversal. > > > > STUN is RFC3489 and draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis. SIP is > > RFC3261. The use of > > STUN with SIP is best described in > > draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios. HIP's > > NAT traversal is described in draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal. > > I looked, albeit briefly, at STUN and SIP. these protocols > are not at all like what I am suggesting. > > RNET will punch through firewalls/NATs without a problem. > Peer to Peer communication using RNET Host Addresses, > however, may present a problem when there are NATs between > them. (The answer to this is simply to allow authenticated > RNET Route Requests to be made at every NAT/firewall) Incoming messages are not just an authorization concern for a NAPT -- more importantly, the NAPT needs to know where to route an incoming message. For example, if there are two RNET-capable hosts behind a NAPT and an RNET message arrives on the NAPT's public interface (that is, it arrives from the Internet), the NAPT will not know which RNET-capable host should get the message. NAPTs resolve this delimma by first expecting (and requiring) a packet to be sent by the 'inside' host to the 'outside' (Internet) host. > I think you missed the point of RNET. That is likely true. > The point being that > you have a valid IPv6 IP address and are able to plug into > any part of the internet and use it from that location. That sounds like Teredo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling > Your address is NOT advertised. The routes made for > communication by your RNET Host decay so as not to polute the > internet's routing tables. > > RNET is quite simple, easy to impliment. > > RNET Route Requests and RNET Error Messages can be put > together under a new IP protocol, named RNET. All that needs > to be done is to have a new protocol number assigned for this purpose. It is not possible to deploy a new protocol behind a NAPT -- a NAPT only understands how to translate UDP, TCP, ICMP, and (if enabled) IPSec ESP. RNET would have to be tunneled over UDP to be deployed beyond a NAPT -- unless your goal is to have everyone upgrade their NAPTs to RNET-aware NAPT devices. -d _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf