Folks,
We have written a new draft about how different addresses should be
selected and combined when ICE NAT traversal is used:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-00This draft was requested on an IESG review of the ICE TCP draft to
clarify how different kind of IPv6 addresses (e.g. ULAs) should be
handled. However, since the same rules apply also to UDP ICE, a separate
draft was written instead of updating the rules in the ICE TCP draft.
Also, we propose a couple of new rules that also affect IPv4 (namely, to
not use loop back and not combine relayed candidates with private-range
addresses).
Comments are welcome!
Cheers,
Ari
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-00.txt
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 12:04:20 +0100
From:
internet-drafts@... <
internet-drafts@...>
To: Ari Keränen <
ari.keranen@...>
CC:
jari.arkko@... <
jari.arkko@...>
A new version of I-D, draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ari Keranen and posted to the IETF
repository.
Filename: draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection
Revision: 00
Title: Update on Candidate Address Selection for Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
Creation date: 2012-03-05
WG ID: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 7
Abstract:
This document revisits the rules on how candidate addresses are
selected and combined when the Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) NAT traversal method is used. This document updates RFCs 5245
and 6544.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
