Subject: RE: [midcom] STUN lifetime discovery question

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:39:35 -0800

> Speaking of which . . . has there been any talk of somehow combining
> shipworm and stun?  A minimal shipworm implementation is slightly but
not
> hugely more complex than stun, and shipworm might benefit from using
SRV
> records in addition to anycast for shipworm server discovery.

We thought about it, and decided not to. The problem space is slightly
different. For shipworm to work, you really want all servers using the
same address, so they can all share the same pinhole in the various
NATs. This is the main reason for not going the SRV route.

-- Christian Huitema

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

---

From: "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:24:47 -0800

> NATs. This is the main reason for not going the SRV route.

The problem, though, is that as a result the technical decision is driving
the business model.  An application provider may very well prefer to run the
server itself, for instance because there is too much variability in the
performance of anycast-discovered servers.  They would not be able to do
this with the shipworm approach, so they would be incented to go with stun.
As a result, they would be less inclined to take an IPv6 orientation in
solving this problem...

I don't see why SRV and anycast have to be mutually exclusive.  Anycast
would be the default behavior, but could be over-ridden by the application
telling the "shipworm layer" to try SRV first.

PF