Subject: RE: [midcom] accept R3a1 & R3a2

From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:37:14 +0100

Scott,
In the context of carrier managed services, the Telephony Service Provider
(TSP)
 will put Media GateWays (MGW) in the customer premise.
The MGWs will be controlled by Media Gateway Controllers (MGC) that are
located in the TSP.
The Midcom Agent (MA) will be co-hosted with the MGC instance.

When you are running several hundred thousands (even millions) of calls,
obviously we are not talking of a couple of IP addresses for the MGC
instances. Depending on your assigned registered address space, you might
want to assign private addresses to your MGC instances, therefore you will
need to NAT the application signaling messages.

Does it make any sense?
Cedric

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 6:28 PM
To: Aoun, Cedric [QPD:MA01:EXCH]
Cc: 'Melinda Shore'; midcom mail-list
Subject: Re: [midcom] accept R3a1 & R3a2

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 04:05:59PM +0100, Cedric Aoun allegedly wrote:
> Scott,
> The topology I have in mind is the following
> 
>  ++++++++++           ++++++++++	     ++++++++++++	
>  +foo.com    +MB1-----+the net      +-------MB2+MA   bar.com+
>  ++++++++++	        ++++++++++              +++++++++++
> 
> 
> In case the Midcom Agent sends a Midcom request to MiddleBox1
> we don't want the protocol messages to contain any IP addresses or ports
> relevant to the bar.com realm.
> This is what I actually meant.

As long as the MA in the picture is a midcom agent, not an application
helper of some sort, I have trouble believing this scenario would be
deployed in real life.  

Can any ISP (not vendor) out there give any example of where they would
want such a scenario?  We're talking about a security relationship
between agent and middlebox crossing a NAT.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:44:10 -0400

> need to NAT the application signaling messages.

Yes.  The NAT and its controlling Midcom Agent share an address space.
The *midcom* messages don't have to go through a NAT.  The application
signaling does -- but that's why we're doing this midcom thing in the
first place.  I see no problem.

> between agent and middlebox crossing a NAT.

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom