Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP "alt-ports" are not mentioned in the RFC.

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2468321F8D2E for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H228j7wlPo1K for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0143221F8D22 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f316d0000028db-1f-5140f42b1585
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 69.C7.10459.B24F0415; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:48:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:48:27 +0100
Message-ID: <5140F428.2040101@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:48:24 -0400
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
References: <CA+TAfnm2p_TtF=x2_jm+YR_NVk94gBDYnKtQcy13307-YmiZQw@mail.gmail.com> <50CEE45A.3000502@alvestrand.no> <50CEE66F.8020902@ericsson.com> <E0C7EA45-D8A2-477C-839A-B64369794262@live555.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0C7EA45-D8A2-477C-839A-B64369794262@live555.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7OF4dAg9mvOS2mNv5ntZi6/DGL A5PHkiU/mTxWL/nDGsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx/PMr1oKlAhXbTs5jbmD8x9PFyMkhIWAi sWrTLFYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAicZJd5OWscE4SxnlGj+OJ0NpIpXQFti4udOFhCbRUBVYsqU newgNpuAhcTNH41gNaICwRI/X51hgagXlDg58wmQzcEhIqAlcXVSDUiYWUBY4sL540wgtrCA i8SOPV0sELuOMEq8/nsZbA6ngL1E57N5LBDXSUpsedHODtGsJzHlagsjhC0v0bx1NjOILQR0 W0NTB+sERqFZSFbPQtIyC0nLAkbmVYzsuYmZOenlhpsYgcF6cMtv3R2Mp86JHGKU5mBREucN c70QICSQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoHRxrL0qKasdqhjyouNx21NFtZxB7+cH1Yj dTZL2ThTYe7EORMVL/2TNNgq+bjyVXb+toO3764Ui+rffPvUmYyF0aVbnvcvy7y/75XQRaGn Ifo9sybv0ls2sz/g9uQasxteW7qz5gnHdqz9KrN6+3HDCFsZtWsNm57NLn1wdEr0x3jnfK8d jVI3lFiKMxINtZiLihMBq24lFiQCAAA=
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP "alt-ports" are not mentioned in the RFC.
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:48:30 -0000

WG,

I hereby proposes the following text

In addition to the registered default ports, i.e. 554 (rtsp) and 322
(rtsps), there are an alternative port 8554 registered. This port may
provide some benefits from non-registered ports if a RTSP server is
unable to use the default port. The benefits may include pre-configured
security policies as well as classifiers in network monitoring tools.

to be added in Section 10.2 after the first paragraph. Please comment if
you see issues with this or thinks it is fine.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2012-12-17 22:17, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> (Grumple... I wish this mailing list were set up so that replies went to
> the mailing list by default.  Resending to the whole mailing list
> instead of just Magnus.)
> 
>> The question is if this port number has any benefit at all.
> 
> Yes it does.  If a RTSP server cannot use port 554 (most likely because
> it is running on a Unix system, but not as 'root'), then it can try
> using port 8554 instead.  (FWIW, our RTSP server implementation - widely
> used on the Internet - does this.)  As you noted, if a server uses port
> 8554 (or any port other than 554), then this port number will need to be
> included in the "rtsp://" URLs that clients use.  But it's beneficial to
> know - e.g., if you're managing a network's 'security' policy - that
> RTSP will likely be used on either port 554 or port 8554 (rather than
> either port 554 or some unspecified other port number).  Similarly, it's
> useful for network monitoring tools to know that traffic on port 8554 is
> likely to be RTSP.
> 



-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------