Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
On Friday 31 October 2008 16:45:08 ext Adam Roach, you wrote:I am not sure if SSH tunnels really fit there, though.Why not? If I have a SIP client behind a firewall, I can use a SSH server as a perfectly good forwarding relay for TCP connections.Because it's impractical to implement and configure.
I'm confused. It's already implemented in several codebases, and configuration involves three pieces of information (userid, password, and ssh server).
TCP over UDP need no configuration. UPnP IGD and NAT-PMP can be autodetected. Teredo normally is autoconfigured by the operating system. SOCKS is already in the proxy settings, regardless of ICE-TCP, and it's simple enough to implement.
That's all true. However, on the machine that I'm sitting at, with the resources I have access to, none of those would work if I tried to use TCP-ICE with a v4-only remote party.
I don't have a TCP over UDP implementation (and it's not even fully specified yet -- we'd need to flesh out SDP syntax, at the very least); the NAT I'm using is based on Linux iptables, and I haven't installed UPnP IGD modules for it (which would be a bit nontrivial); as much as I'd like the far end to advertise a v6 address, there's nothing I can do to force the issue; and I don't have access to a SOCKS server.
I *do*, however, have access to several SSH servers that I can use to tunnel TCP connections.
Is my situation a bid odd? For a home network, yeah, it's a bit different. However, the properties are very similar to what your average user will encounter when plugging into the network in just about any hotel in the world.
But we can cover additional users -- myself included -- by leveraging a well-defined, broadly-deployed technology. I don't see any reason to exclude it.
/a _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic