[dcc2] NAT traversal for direct connections

[peter green]

STUN does not require ssl
read the rfc
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3489.html
there is absoloutely no mention of ssl



-----Original Message-----
From: dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org [mailto:dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org]On Behalf Of
Dave Johnson
Sent: 25 May 2004 16:30
To: DCC2 Working Group List
Subject: RE: [dcc2] NAT traversal for direct connections



STUN certanly looks interesting, but to me it seems overly
complicated.  If I read it correctly it requires an external server to
setup the connection.  Where is this?  Are we going to suggest the IRC
server do this or even integrate something into ircd?  Why in the
world would STUN require SSL just to let you send it a udp packet.

I started putting together a proposal for automatic NAT/firewall
traversal, I'll see if I can finish that up in the next few days and
send it out.

--
Dave

peter green writes:
> teredo seems to be beyond the scope of DDC2
> its something that seems intended to be at the system level and will
appear
> to the app as a normal ipv6 connection
>
> STUN is intended to be used at the application level but will require
> engineering some form of udp stream protocol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org [mailto:dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org]On Behalf Of
> Phoenix Fyrestar
> Sent: 21 May 2004 21:54
> To: DCC2 Working Group List
> Subject: Re: [dcc2] NAT traversal for direct connections
>
>
> I belive we should go with STUN/UPNP.  Although I am admittedly bias, I
have
> a
> hard time thinking much long term good can come from standardizing on
> something from microsoft as opposed to a free and open protocol.
>
> On Friday 21 May 2004 01:03 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > I have been updating the negotiation draft to address our last months
> > discussion.  I think we still have more to talk about with the NAT
> > traversal.
> >
> > The current NAT token should be renamed to PASV or something similar, to
> > indicate a passive transfer would be preferred, and be added as an
option
> > in a "new" NAT token.  The NAT token will then contain a list of
supported
> > NAT traversal protocols.  Which traversal techniques do you think we
> should
> > adopt/standardize around?
> >
> > The two that I am leaning toward are STUN+UPNP, and microsofts Teredo
> > technique for IPv6 encapsulation over IPv4/UDP.
> >
> > There are advantages and disadvantages to each.  With teredo, a
> > intermediate teredo server (an ipv4 and ipv6 connected computer) is
> > needed.  STUN does not allow incoming tcp connections or work with
> > symmetric NATs, so connections would have to use a tftp type protocol
over
> > udp.
> >
> > There is "no good way" to solve the problem of NAT traversal beside
global
> > addressing (which DCC2's ipv6 support addresses), but we can still solve
> of
> > most of the NAT traversal cases.  What are your opinions/comments or
other
> > protocol suggestions?
> >
> > Quicklinks:
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/teredo.mspx
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3489.txt
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Dan
> >

_______________________________________________
dcc2 mailing list
dcc2 at dcc2.org
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/2004