Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket-00.txt

"Chenxin (Xin)" <> Thu, 16 May 2013 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF13B21F907E; Thu, 16 May 2013 04:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YlyTRzUIQw7f; Thu, 16 May 2013 04:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED44D21F8E96; Thu, 16 May 2013 04:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASV96520; Thu, 16 May 2013 11:52:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:51:46 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 16 May 2013 19:52:20 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 16 May 2013 19:52:18 +0800
From: "Chenxin (Xin)" <>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <>, Bernard Aboba <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOUYdZvexTilrlAE6hVSVk7wP2WJkF96iAgAD9vYCAAL7ywA==
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:52:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <BLU169-W4995BC8B88C6AD60F4CA5093A20@phx.gbl> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:52:26 -0000

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hutton, Andrew []
>Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:28 PM
>To: Bernard Aboba; Chenxin (Xin);;
>Subject: RE: [rtcweb] FW: New Version Notification for
>I agree with Bernard's comments regarding the impact of DPI but of course such
>DPI devices do what they do and we can't and even don't want to stop them
>from doing it. However for the case when policy is such that the firewall will only
>allow traffic to traverse that comes from the HTTP Proxy or a network specific
>TURN server and there is no deliberate policy to block WebRTC media we need a
>solution and this is what draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00

Yes, we could not stop the use of DPI, but we should consider this scene. I think that is the purpose of F37. Besides, websocket is friendly to http proxy too. I agree that draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00 should be a baseline to solve the traverse problem of nat and fireward. But I think the turn over websocket solution should also be considered as a option to solve some corner use case and requirement.

Best Regards,

>So far I don't see the benefit that TURN over websockets would have in this
>scenario and it needs additional implementation in the browser and the TURN
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bernard Aboba []
>> Sent: 15 May 2013 18:20
>> To: Hutton, Andrew; Chenxin (Xin);;
>> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-
>> behave-turn-websocket-00.txt
>> Andrew Hutton said:
>> > When we wrote the draft
>> rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00 we did not include this option
>> because we did not see the benefit of additional transport options for
>> TURN given that the existing options (E.g. TURN/TCP and TURN/TLS) seem
>> to be meet our needs.
>> >
>> > So what would be the benefits that justify this addition transport
>> option for TURN?
>> [BA] In my experience,  institutions with very restrictive security
>> policies (e.g. those that don't allow UDP in or out) also tend to
>> deploy other measures such as deep packet inspection.   So just because
>> some traffic is allowed in or out on port 80 does not mean that
>> TURN/TCP will be allowed on that port - a DPI box may examine the
>> traffic and complain if it doesn't see HTTP being used.  On the other
>> hand, unless the DPI box is upgraded, it will also complain about
>> websockets.  So I think draft-chenxin only helps in a situation where
>> TURN over Websockets would be allowed when TURN/TCP would not
>be.  That
>> scenario is rare, at least at the moment.
>> The argument for TURN over Websocket/TLS is even more difficult to
>> make. While DPI boxes may examine traffic destined to port 443
>> carefully to make sure that TLS is really being used,  assuming that
>> the DPI box does not see anything it considers fishy, the TLS exchange
>> will complete and the DPI box will lose visibility.  After TLS is
>> running, the DPI box does not have much information available to
>> distinguish TURN/TLS from HTTP over TLS, with or without websockets --
>> and those things it does have (such as packet size) are as likely to
>> result in an objection to websocket transport as TURN/TLS.  So I'm not
>> sure that draft-chenxin will help in that situation either.