Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle, privacy and bogus addresses

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 49B5721F8698 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.974
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
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 EDqmM0FQB8u5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f49.google.com (mail-qe0-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7356B21F8696 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 1so2146199qec.22 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=OR5w+Dap4tBWlF2HUP07Mdmh5h5L9DiWIr9Qaol9rmc=; b=RudN+CV/dLKsFZ3fg10oVFJBLodRe1vvEoi1MMvnxkliC9bGPRJm2T1Eb/tu+1a7xk B9KgSHKk+hm8dgRLx+FDe+LRxzdsYzXez3nmNWMxNzWYN9zxzO5gjx4r+BPyYBLDqu6r 49xLVIyfP/ESQacmSfkGvigxJnukpsQNmi/qCGKGu1+UmKHRxMQ5t+cgn40r/mLQoLUL 3cEL74KJV6PWsnA2cq3aiIYA6adjzBIhjMI/r8fFlrm2/FZ4hPG2z9ydnLxO/abMZhwA B5DmMjGL6NOYgmylC7r6EJPwVIweVOzJMHM6DApf66nzD5AD8ZyqerbefdWmnLQx5rcg 9xlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=OR5w+Dap4tBWlF2HUP07Mdmh5h5L9DiWIr9Qaol9rmc=; b=j0+DKdyaNLIX05UI30T4CB5EtPrfDZwi4rw8CY+rnzM0jIR4HsFLeCo2k0Wqh0oN0n P3/IVG2zSWuoRNUldWyUO6lbIy33BjXJOYspAWRjW12j1a1K36SCxKXNbQFQZzJ2r4wJ P/IVf94RGtxUAlA4LKedYnIlQ+YZtk0fNXo/v+HRaLehQar+7KeH9qxSSKpu0Dw5i5Lw TLH3SU3wXc3U8UKmQf5rSIwoOXfSXbNwGENmrsgr8fmYByU7uWG6GkFjgXUJIrW4jLtH DobTVg6U/Ku4aD9dTjhNH3fyyRwvJaxmtiFhpTRhijihDrj/ZF4mz47ZaKGYngQGs00A r2iA==
X-Received: by 10.49.15.198 with SMTP id z6mr8192932qec.6.1363377682586; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.138.3 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWxDX2yDiB1BLa=QDeazKo9DVyHfRB=6VAKCJ9P_SCvyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnW_epOmud_=uVoLvcipeC=5ukG+daJ3axa-tc72CPzCgw@mail.gmail.com> <51422F4A.8000103@jitsi.org> <CABkgnnWxDX2yDiB1BLa=QDeazKo9DVyHfRB=6VAKCJ9P_SCvyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3om2KSi2r6HuGEOgA-YGiv9R-AdwS0PmoN0Dtf8wS=vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6ae8077587904d7fc1a0c"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2hNDeV4HpFG3V1h7yRTNxQ0arKJvW6PnU1HQwQFm6DrfYRbQXaZESphpvgfHb5DJ2t4/JrwY2LKF8SNlcENDBgufNSHWqgKWx86jE92VPb4g++KfufOYB/+eSQzeKIgwZxCX6SVf2vuwFeaz+xQaPi3i1yVgkh4gTPie83Jr/Vedlj+KHrHQSyxlEgfiU1Ncge9oR
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle, privacy and bogus addresses
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:01:24 -0000

You may want to enforce address privacy on the outgoing offer because you
_never_ want the other side to learn your IP.

In the case where both sides want to maintain address privacy, using a null
address shortens the setup time since TURN allocation can happen in
parallel.


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 14 March 2013 16:12, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
> > On 14.03.13, 16:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
> >> Someone proposed that we use 0.0.0.1:9 to signal "no candidates".
> >>
> >> I don't believe this to be necessary and would rather we don't go there
> at all.
> >
> > When we talked about this on Tuesday, it appeared as if we had consensus
> > and the only issue was about making a choice between one of the many
> > possible options. (127..., 0.0.0.X, something else that IANA would
> > allocate for us).
> >
> > How do you get from that to "I'd rather we didn't do it at all" ?
>
> I applied some brain cycles to the problem, talked to a few people.
>
> I'll find you and walk through the proof.  It's not especially complicated.
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>