Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-outbound

From: "Samir Srivastava" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:38:01 -0600

This seems like a good reason for this (or another) draft to discuss the
alternative solutions for use until the STUN solution is supported by
both devices.  Since the draft is basically silent, vendors will just
fallback to flooding the network with their favorite SIP request
(REGISTERs, etcetera) for solving the problem without much guidance or
potential optimizations.

SS>> I agree.
  
I captured following from SIPIT-16 (Apr 05) report. I couldn't find
SIPIT-17 report from archive.  Can somebody update on outbound from
that.

"There were 10 teams with implementations doing various things to
keep NAT bindings alive (sending CRLFs, empty media packets,
etc). The remainder were not attempting to address the problem at
this time."

There are *Empty Media Packets* too !!

Thx
Samir

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:41:57 +0200

I don't agree. This is being done without documenting it. Once 
documented, it will never go away. We all know that.

Hisham