[Standards] ICE/UDP and NAT

Sylvain Mundialco sylvain at mundialco.com
Thu Jul 31 09:39:56 CDT 2008


 My question was actual in the xep-0176 section 5.5 Connectivity
 Checks.

 The initiator and responder and behind NAT. We are not able to do get
 implementation right. The responder do not get the first request same
 as initiator ( illustrated   by From 192.0.2.3:45665 to
 192.0.2.1:3478 reaching the responder  In the xep 5.5 graph ).
 Can we have more clarity on this as both initiator and responder



-------Original Message-------
 
From: Pavel Simerda
Date: 7/31/2008 3:23:54 PM
To: Sylvain Mundialco
Subject: Re: [Standards] ICE/UDP and NAT
 
Bad reply, re-post it to standards at xmpp.org
 
Maybe your client is broken in replying (you replied to
pavlix at pavlix.net).
 
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:24:46 +0200
"Sylvain Mundialco" <sylvain at mundialco.com> wrote:
 
> My question was actual in the xep-0176 section 5.5 Connectivity
> Checks.
>
> The initiator and responder and behind NAT. We are not able to do get
> implementation right. The responder do not get the first request same
> as initiator ( illustrated   by From 192.0.2.3:45665 to
> 192.0.2.1:3478 reaching the responder  In the xep 5.5 graph ).
> Can we have more clarity on this as both initiator and responder
>
> From: Pavel Simerda
> Date: 7/30/2008 9:03:43 PM
> To: standards at xmpp.org
> Cc: Sylvain Mundialco;  XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] ICE/UDP and NAT
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:21:43 +0200
> "Sylvain Mundialco" <sylvain at mundialco.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Can I have more clarity on these:
> >
> > We are implementing jingle and all is going all but the
> > configuration NAT/Firewall for both peer is not working. I'm
> > thinking to use relayed candidate but I know that there is a way of
> > punching hole in Nat/Firewall.
> >
> > 1) Is it the possible to use the UDP firewall punching hole
> > technique of waiting the NAT to map the inbound and outbound IP to
> > allow comunication
>
> This is more of a question for your network/firewall administrator,
> not for XMPP people. For the XMPP part, refer to *XEP-0176: Jingle
> ICE-UDP Transport Method*
>
> > 2) when should we use relay candidate in jingle negotiation.
>
> You should generally avoid it.
>
> > 3) how with jingle can we get a usable pair of candidates behind
> > firewall and NAT.
>
> I believe it's answered in (1).
>
> > Sylvain.
>
>
> --
>
> Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
> Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
> OpenID: pavlix.net
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
> 7/30/2008 6:56 AM
>
>
 
 
--
 
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net
 
 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.9/1583 - Release Date: 7/31/2008
6:17 AM
 
 
.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080731/31af162c/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080731/31af162c/attachment-0001.gif 


More information about the Standards mailing list