Re: [MMUSIC] ICE candidate address selection update draft

[Ari Keranen <[e-mail]>]

On 8/3/12 12:03 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2012-08-03 11:58, Ari Keranen a écrit :
>> Yes, you should not get ULAs from the STUN server as long as the STUN
>> server is properly located (on the Internet, outside of the organization
>> perimeter and on the other side of any NATs). And the peer reflexive
>> candidate (which would be global address) can be then matched with
>> peer's globals.
>
> But reflexive candidates don't always work. I know I said NPTv6, but we
> shouldn't prevent ICE from working behind evil NAT66. And an ICE client
> may not be able to reach a STUN server so you can't rely on having
> reflexive candidates. So you should still try to match ULAs with globals.

OK, this is quite a corner case, but I'm afraid you're right. However, 
if you have a global address on the interface (i.e., you're not behind 
an evil NAT66), matching ULAs with globals doesn't make sense. So, I'd 
suggest text along the lines of:

    o  Candidate addresses from Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) SHOULD NOT
       be combined with any other candidates except other ULA candidates.
       However, if an interface does not have any global addresses, the
       ULA SHOULD be used.

(changed MUST to SHOULD and added the second sentence)


Cheers,
Ari