Hi,
one question we really need to answer is whether we want to go through
the pains of specifying UDP encapsulations for all our transport
protocols. We have on the table:
* draft-phelan-dccp-natencap for DCCP
* draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps for SCTP
* JDR's recent email on the MMUSIC list for TCP-over-UDP
All of them need to basically design very similar handshake/signaling
exchanges, they all need a solution for the service identification
issue, etc. This is undesirable.
If we need to encapsulate something in UDP for the purposes of NAT
traversal, why aren't we encapsulating IP in UDP, on top of which we
can run pretty much anything? Instead of requiring that DCCP stacks
grow support for DCCP-over-UDP, why don't we simply require that DCCP
stacks implement Teredo or something similar? Why are we solving the
NAT traversal problem protocol-by-protocol rather than one time?
(The still ongoing NAT traversal discussion in HIP - which is building
its own NAT traversal solution - has left me convinced that we should
have pushed harder for the original "just use Teredo" proposal for HIP
NAT traversal. We'd be long done.)
Lars
