[AG-TECH] room node certificates

[S.Booth]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Jay Beavers wrote:

> The "first issue", using CNAME to link multiple streams to a logical
> sender, is very clear from the spec.  In the "second issue", AKA reusing
> a CNAME between multiple hosts, it's possible that you'll run into
> interoperability problems.  It's a reasonable assumption from reading
> the spec that you could reuse CNAMES between multiple hosts, there's
> nothing in the spec which says you can't do this.  It's also a
> reasonable assumption from reading the spec that a CNAME bound to a
> specific host.  There's also nothing in the spec to say this isn't true
> and at least to me this is implied by the recommended value for CNAME of
> "user at host".  Because of the ambiguity here, you may run into problems
> between two spec compliant implementations of the same standard.

To enforce the assumption that a CNAME is bound to a specific host you
have to be tracking the source address of the multicast packets I think 
the only thing anything like and encoding of hostname in the RTP/RTCP
packet is the CNAME.
However I don't think you should be tracking the source address as your
code might break when using bridges and reflectors that
re-send multicast packets.
If the code works fine through a bridge then we can patch round any
problem by connecting it to the session via a bridge, that way all the
packets will have come from the SAME source address and the problem app
will be none the wiser :-)


				stephen

======================================================================
|epcc| Dr Stephen P Booth             Project Manager           |epcc|
|epcc| s.booth at epcc.ed.ac.uk          Phone 0131 650 5746       |epcc|
======================================================================