Subject: [MMUSIC] HIP NAT Traversal using NICE

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:47:08 +0300

Folks involved in the MMUSIC WG,

the HIP WG is developing a NAT traversal solution that is based on NICE:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-03.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-00.txt

This means that we depend on the NICE draft to have a working NAT 
traversal solution for HIP. However, from the presentation of this draft 
in the last IETF, it is not clear to us whether or not the MMUSIC WG is 
going to work on this draft.

The HIP WG would like to encourage the MMUSIC WG to work on this 
specification, since we need it. If the MMUSIC WG decides not to do so, 
the HIP WG will most likely copy/paste the contents of the NICE draft in 
our NAT traversal spec. However, we believe that having a stand-alone 
NICE specification can be useful for protocols other than HIP that will 
decide to use ICE for NAT traversal in the future.

A clarification of the status of this work in the MMUSIC WG would be 
appreciated.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
HIP WG co-chair
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:58:37 -0700

Gonzalo,

I would be interested in an updated evaluation from you on the practical
(near term) potential of using HIP NAT traversal for P2PSIP.  
There was even talk of running code.

Can you (and anyone else) share a few key thoughts, references and links
to running code?

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Gonzalo Camarillo
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:47 AM
To: mmusic
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; David Ward
Subject: [MMUSIC] HIP NAT Traversal using NICE

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-00
.txt

Thanks,

Gonzalo
HIP WG co-chair

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 00:02:31 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Henry Sinnreich wrote:

Hi Henry,

NAT traversal implementations are work in progress at least for the 
following projects:

http://www.hip4inter.net/
http://www.openhip.org/
http://www.infrahip.net/

> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>

-- 
Miika Komu                                       http://www.iki.fi/miika/
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:08:28 +0300

Hi,

yes, as Miika points out, there are several groups working on it. We 
should be doing the first interop tests between different 
implementations shortly.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 06:13:27 -0700

Thanks Miika and Gonzalo!

Can you keep us advised of the interoperability work?
This will have IMO very beneficial effects for the whole industry.

Henry 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:08 AM
To: Miika Komu
Cc: Henry Sinnreich; mmusic; P2PSIP Mailing List;
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; David Ward
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] [MMUSIC] HIP NAT Traversal using NICE

Hi,

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:05:12 +0300

Hi,

I did not get any answer to my question below... can the HIP WG count on 
MMUSIC producing a spec along the lines of NICE?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:32:41 -0700

Added Lars and Magnus ...

Lars, Magnus, and I are have been working on where to do this work but  
I don't think that should get in the way of the work getting done. We  
all want the work to happen and I think Jonathan and others are still  
willing to do the work. We might do this in mmusic, we might do it in  
some other working group, or one of the RAI or transport ADs might AD  
sponsor it, but no matter which of these it is, we do want this work  
to happen. For now I think the mmusic list is the best place to keep  
discussing it. I would rather not paste the NICE stuff into the HIP  
document as that would likely result in divergence as time goes on and  
more things use NICE.

I'm sure the various ADs on this email will work to make sure the IESG  
will not be the hold up on NICE. If we have still not figured out  
where NICE should be done by the time it is ready to publish, one of  
us will AD sponsor it.

Cullen

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:39:12 -0400

I will note that my impression from our discussions in Philly about  
this document is that people are looking for an _informational_  
document that describes what the inputs are to the ICE algorithm and  
how you can provide them if you are not doing SIP. The -00 version  
defined a subset of ICE which seemed almost like a new protocol, but  
people pretty much shot this down at the meeting, saying that the just  
wanted to understand how to plug new usages into existing ICE code.

- Philip

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:02:19 -0500

The merits of HIP for enabling NAT traversal for all application protocols,
including SIP, RTP, etc. seem very compelling.

Shifting the NAT traversal focus to HIP promises therefore the highest
return on effort. Especially, by such work made available at

http://infrahip.hiit.fi/

This work is also reflected in

Is this discussion about what WG should do this work? If so, why not join
forces? Am I missing something?

Henry

>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-00.tx>>>>
t