Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and RTCP host components

Christer Holmberg <> Sun, 25 October 2015 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459B01ACE34 for <>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 23:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WZeP6zamLsSQ for <>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 23:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFF621ACE33 for <>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 23:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79136d0000071e2-97-562c73e4de0c
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4E.87.29154.4E37C265; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:17:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:17:08 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] ICE and RTCP host components
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 06:17:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>,<>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B8D84DESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VvdJsU6YwZmzhhZTlz9msVix4QCr A5PH3/cfmDyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx9vd3poIG54r1m1awNDCutuhi5OSQEDCR eH6umw3CFpO4cG89mC0kcIRR4s/BNAh7MaPE6e/BXYwcHGwCFhLd/7RBwiICvhLPHt8GKxcW MJKYdukPE0TcWGLfoaesEHaZxJIZ79lBWlkEVCWubJYDMXmBWqd1e3cxcgENv8wisWTvVhaQ ck4BHYm5y/rBxjACXfP91Bowm1lAXKLpy0pWiCsFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8jxWiJl/i/PIZYPW8 AoISJ2c+YZnAKDwLSfssJGWzkJRBxA0kvry/DWVrSyxb+JoZwtaX6H5/mglZfAEj+ypG0eLU 4uLcdCMjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwMg5uOW31Q7Gg88dDzEKcDAq8fAm/NcOE2JNLCuuzD3E KMHBrCTCa30TKMSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZy3melBqJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNT qoFR0jpR3+hSrunNZ5YTZuyfuvLVnWkrri7JPHQvadXn73yPpDquu3vzZZUdWPxh5+uGzvzt bPpyJfuWL/uVN89IYcKUrSUvTO/xef0IPe83xcv92v1zb0PSm9Z6+Xyx2XZLd7mDc0hS5WGh MNbZX+/s6L7w2FCRLfddwbxIh/ur3Lv83u8SqtvRosRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAGhDe/CYAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and RTCP host components
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 06:17:14 -0000

Hi Paul,

I did notice your conversation after I had posted my reply. I will post any further comments there.

Sorry for the mess.



Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Paul Kyzivat<>
Sent: ‎24/‎10/‎2015 17:33
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and RTCP host components

Note that on a separate thread we are concluding that if you do bundle
you must to rtcp-mux.

If we don't already have a problem with legacy ICE, I think it might
also make sense to require that if you do ICE you must to rtcp-mux.

For compatibility with non-ICE, it would be ok to offer ICE and and
rtp-mux, or ICE and a=rtcp, as fallbacks for answers that refuse ICE.

I think that would provide as much legacy compatibility as is feasible.


On 10/24/15 8:00 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 09:00 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 10/23/15 2:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>> The normal use case for ICE are large numbers of end points deployed
>>> behind NAT sending media directly to each other.
>> "Normal" changes over time. I think what you mean here is "current".
>> As ICE becomes more mature and people understand it better, it will be
>> used more broadly, for things that have legacy components.
>> In any case, I think there will be much use of webrtc as one end of a
>> session with the other end being a legacy sip device.
>>> Deploying a lot of end
>>> points without some sort of consent to send media mechanism creates a
>>> perfect platform for denial of service attacks. ICE solves this issue if
>>> legacy support is disabled. Furthermore, legacy end points without SDP
>>> rtcp attribute support end up sending RTCP to completely wrong place.
>>> Best solution for anything ICE enabled is to set c= line address to IP4
>>> and provide real RTP and RTCP in ICE candidates. Legacy will not
>>> work, but no traffic to unexpected destinations will be generated.
>> Don't break interworking. Certainly this will require at least a
>> signaling gateway. In general that will require a media gateway too.
>> But anything that can be done to reduce the load on such a media
>> gateway is good. It may need to do ICE. It may need to do the consent
>> on behalf of the ultimate device.
> If "legacy" = "does not support ICE": Not "may". "will".
> RTCWEB is designed to not start working unless ICE is present, and to
> stop working if consent (which also requires ICE) isn't performed.
> If the problem is "interwork with WebRTC devices", there's a class of
> legacy devices that is "someone else's problem".
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list

mmusic mailing list