[Standards] Re: Jingle bootstrapping

Thiago Camargo thiago at jivesoftware.com
Tue Mar 6 19:10:17 UTC 2007


What ICE proposes is not to violate Company's policy. ICE proposes a way to traverse NATs without violating company's policies.

"And I used to work only with UDP/SIP, and fight good battles  
against port and protocols blocking."
Means that is not that easy to make P2P voIP calls work in corporative environments. 
Especially when NEEDING many protocols and ports opened. 
As less port usage and less protocol number usage, less trouble with security blocks.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly.

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Monitzer
Sent: terça-feira, 6 de março de 2007 13:37
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] Re: Jingle bootstrapping

On Mar 06, 2007, at 17:09, Thiago Camargo wrote:

> I worked for 3 years in corporative environments. Just like Jean- 
> Louis, but I think that he must be much larger experience than me.
> So what I usually see is:
> * Many Ports are blocked.
> * ICMP not allowed, even internally.
> * STUN not allowed. (Because they think, it can traces the NAT  
> model of their company network. And they got their reasons and  
> "Finish". They aren't that opened to discuss too many changes in  
> network security and model.)
> * Exists several that don't even open high UDP ports for voip.  
> (These ones are the most complicated ones. They usually just allow  
> HTTP, and HTTP through a http proxy.)
> And I used to work only with UDP/SIP, and fight good battles  
> against port and protocols blocking.

Should you really help people to violate their company policy? I  
guess there's a reason the system administrators of these networks  
are that restrictive.


More information about the Standards mailing list