-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 10:51 pm, Adam Hart wrote:
Comment below...
Steve wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 08:45 pm, James H. Thompson wrote:
No guarantee then when public IPs match that
Here's a recap of what I am hearing:
1) Everybody (thus far) is in favor of trying to standards-track (or at
least do an Information RFC) on IAX2.
2) IAX2 needs to have AES encryption added prior to submission.
3) IAX2 needs to have non pin-wheeling NAT support added (i.e. support for
It looks like we have to create an Internet Draft which is assigned to the
relevant working group for revision, questions, comments, more revision,
then it may or may not become an RFC. Unfortunately, the IPTel working
group appears to be made up of people who are heavily invested in SIP.
That's
On Mar 24, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Adam Hart wrote:
Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
quote who=Adam Hart
I also like to see two
people behind the same nat being able to communicate directly
(without
requiring pin-wheeling). Ie The client attaches their private ip to
the
register packet, which is used
Steven Sokol wrote:
*snip*
Thoughts?
Even if IAX2 doesn't current have these features coded into asterisk et
al how does that stop an internet draft being written about them, all it
has to cover is how it should be implemented not how it actually is at
present, and having implemented the
I have seen a number of postings cross this list that mention the
possibility of standards-tracking IAX2 with the IETF (generating an RFC,
etc.). Has that gone anywhere? What would it take to make it happen?
Several of my clients have indicated that they love the firewall/NAT
neutrality of
--On Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:13 am -0600 Steven Sokol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have seen a number of postings cross this list that mention the
possibility of standards-tracking IAX2 with the IETF (generating an RFC,
etc.). Has that gone anywhere? What would it take to make it happen?
Iain Stevenson wrote:
--On Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:13 am -0600 Steven Sokol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have seen a number of postings cross this list that mention the
possibility of standards-tracking IAX2 with the IETF (generating an RFC,
etc.). Has that gone anywhere? What would it
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
An informational RFC documenting the protocol would be a good start,
it would
make it more open but not an IETF product. Security specialists would
get something
to read and analyze. A VOIP protocol with RSA authentication,
implemented today.
Is there any IAX2
quote who=Adam Hart
I also like to see two
people behind the same nat being able to communicate directly (without
requiring pin-wheeling). Ie The client attaches their private ip to the
register packet, which is used when client A B's public ips match.
192.168.1.0/24 -- NAT-BOX -- Internet
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
An informational RFC documenting the protocol would be a good start, it would
make it more open but not an IETF product. Security specialists would get something
to read and analyze. A VOIP protocol with RSA authentication, implemented today.
Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
quote who=Adam Hart
I also like to see two
people behind the same nat being able to communicate directly (without
requiring pin-wheeling). Ie The client attaches their private ip to the
register packet, which is used when client A B's public ips match.
quote who=Adam Hart
from my post: which is used when client A B's public ips match.
meaning in this situation both clients would have different public IPs
and it wouldn't be used.
Do'h!! My bad.
--
END OF LINE
-MCP
___
Asterisk-Users
]
- Original Message -
From: Adam Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] IAX2 as an IETF Standard?
Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
quote who=Adam Hart
I also like to see two
people behind the same nat being able
James H. Thompson wrote:
No guarantee then when public IPs match that clients are both on same NAT LAN.
Client A 192.168.0.1 - NAT Router A - NAT Router X with Public IP 123.123.123.123 ---
Internet
Client B 192.168.0.1 - NAT Router B -|
Jim
James H. Thompson
[EMAIL
]
- Original Message -
From: Adam Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] IAX2 as an IETF Standard?
Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
quote who=Adam Hart
I also like to see two
people behind the same nat being able
Comment below...
Steve wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 08:45 pm, James H. Thompson wrote:
No guarantee then when public IPs match that clients are both on same NAT
LAN.
Client A 192.168.0.1 - NAT Router A - NAT Router X with
Public
Adam Hart wrote:
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
An informational RFC documenting the protocol would be a good start,
it would
make it more open but not an IETF product. Security specialists would
get something
to read and analyze. A VOIP protocol with RSA authentication,
implemented today.
Is
18 matches
Mail list logo
