Hi, If you read my response you will see that this requirements comes are there since the requirement when written took into account that one solution will be based on the H.323 extension mechanisms that require those H.323, H.225.0 and H.245 versions. So systems that are H.323 V2 will not be able to support H.460.18 and H.460.19. Possibly it is that to implement H.40.18 and H.460.19 you need those H.323 versions and above. Like I mentioned if you use SBC or ALGs then this is not required and the SBC and ALG will also support H.323 V2 and V1(if there are) product.
Roni
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Boyle [mailto:kboyle@nortel.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:56 PM To: cathy jiang Cc: itu-sg16@external.cisco.com Subject: RE: Question on a NAT traversal requirement
From my reading of this, the system requires at least H.323v3.
H.323v1
and v2 are inadequate.
Note that the other specs are subject to different version
requirements:
H.245 must be at least v7, for example.
Kevin
-----Original Message----- From: cathy jiang [mailto:jiangxiaolin@mail.ritt.com.cn] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:19 AM To: OKUBO Sakae Subject: RE: Question on a NAT traversal requirement
Mr.Okubo,
From this sentence you quoted, it means that NAT/FW traversal schemes should consider at least V3 and also should have the abilities to
adapt
to the later versions, i.e. v4,v5 and v6. There might have some legacy networks deployed with h.323 v1/v2 which should be taken into cosideration of NAT/FW traversal.But it was not implied here that
NAT/FW
traversal MUST support v1/v2.
Best Xiaolin
======= At 2006-08-22, 16:25:30 you wrote: =======
Mr. Okubo,
This statement is there since the in order to allow solutions that
will
require the extensibility framework and generic parameters defined
only
from those versions. This means that any version from this version and above will work. It also means that NAT traversal may work with older systems using other NAT traversal mechanisms like Session Border Controllers or ALGs
Roni Even
-----Original Message----- From: OKUBO Sakae [mailto:okubo@MXZ.MESH.NE.JP] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:10 AM To: itu-sg16@external.cisco.com Subject: Question on a NAT traversal requirement
Dear NAT traversal experts,
TTC (The Telecommunication Technology Committee) is now working on Technical Paper "Requirements for Network Address Translator and Firewall Traversal of H.323 Multimedia Systems" to convert it to a Technical Report in Japanese language.
I have a question on how to interpret the following part:
9.3 Requirements on Signalling and Media Streams b) NAT traversal mechanisms for H.323 multimedia systems shall support no less than ITU-T H.323v3, H.245v7, H.225.0v4, and
H.235v3.
All later versions of H.323, H.245, H.225.0 and H.235 may be supported.
Take an example of H.323 that has now v6. Which of the following statements are true?
NAT traversal
1/ shall not support v1 or v2. 2/ may support v1 or v2. 3/ shall support v3. 4/ shall support v3 and in addition may support any combinations of v4, v5 and v6. 5/ shall support v3 and may support v4, or (v4 and v5), or (v4, v5 and v6).
In other words, NAT traversal with the following support conforms
to
this requirement:
a/ v3 b/ v4 c/ v5 d/ v6 e/ v3, v4 f/ v3, v5 g/ v3, v6 h/ v3, v4, v5 i/ v3, v4, v5, v6 j/ v4, v5 k/ v4, v6 l/ v4, v5, v6 m/ v5, v6
-- Best regards,
OKUBO Sakae e-mail: okubo@aoni.waseda.jp (<== sokubo@waseda.jp, valid until 31 March 2007) Visiting Professor Global Information and Telecommunication Institute (GITI) Waseda University
Waseda University, YRP Ichibankan 312 Tel: +81 46 847 5406 3-4 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken Fax: +81 46 847 5413 239-0847 Japan H.323 videoconferencing: arranged by advice
.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
cathy jiang jiangxiaolin@mail.ritt.com.cn 2006-08-22