[Standards] NEW: XEP-0279 (Server IP Check)

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 12 13:05:56 UTC 2010


On 12 March 2010 11:57, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Sat Mar  6 09:33:25 2010, Pedro Melo wrote:
>>
>> Besides, this is a trivial XEP. The C2S already has your IP address,
>> so its easier to ask your server for it.
>
> That's not actually clear to me.
>
> In the majority of our deployments, M-Link sits in a DMZ, with routable
> access to client IP addresses, such that it sees internal addresses rather
> than external. I have no reason to think that in this respect, our customers
> are different from anyone else's. Since the majority of the clients connect
> from internal addresses, it follows that this protocol will return the wrong
> address in the majority of cases for the majority of deployments.
>

I'm not sure I'll agree that it'll affect the majority of users
without seeing figures (that I know full well can't be produced) :)

> I understand the need for this XEP, but it would be useful to acknowledge
> that STUN exists and is preferable (since STUN servers will be explicitly
> located to avoid the aforementioned problem) - the current XEP doesn't have
> any mention of STUN, which is a little alarming.
>

+1.

> For one thing, suggesting that this will usefully indicate to clients that
> they are located behind a NAT isn't true if the server is also located
> behind the same NAT...
>

+1.

I think this needs clarification. So let's get the people who have
been pushing for this XEP to describe their use-cases.

Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list