IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pntaw] More on draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBF211E8147 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 iyq5u-g9pBx0 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A145711E814E for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp2so4691222pbb.14 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bD9oZfUgM2LISFtCuKvegnwix3F9kCRUXRAFscZfXZ0=; b=xJPEH9u8JJ7//iNFhIwgv6aTvtAOF+m9PuyueKz/FODDxKdg8j8b4FeGfZ3P/BFz2Q f1585+ZlrJnuSIL/QRrHAqJHJ8A2gpt2p4DYFe5oFJudRJ9WRvTNwCeG9Cji9TWBmXr7 HG8tbqgIGDtt2gYyw7tidQEey2Z75YdrmH45F7dYK5lcbpyOJIP2AkooYi9XXCIXhbaf V0IwOav+rR85QE3nxV0oxt33ED5/6Lb+ENyRa+e+WnqbCEI+E9507m7Wbnvda/2kBS2Q fzwjgK2C+vlJo6uG8c2+kju8Ibo5eKYa20hGqj8PyMiUVh0BwK1UXKp2/Np2LK4wE3eQ LD3w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.180.200 with SMTP id dq8mr28935553pac.104.1380035078373; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.91.163 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5241A7E7.8070101@viagenie.ca>
References: <52411CD5.1050909@gmail.com> <CALDtMr+O8__AUk9qXm9yz4ePNtV_n=V31oHNQ_a068viV_uZYg@mail.gmail.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1907DC09@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CALDtMrKOdWSRxM4c_XW7rv6_hTcsa_Zp2A+83zoK3+fHYR0rrA@mail.gmail.com> <5241A7E7.8070101@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:04:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CALDtMrJ_2BZSAxMvMExU5v7M29dKV+1YpXBHXM0icjOCryuOow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba972c29fcfbf04e7227400"
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [pntaw] More on draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
X-BeenThere: pntaw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for practices related to proxies, NATs, TURN, and WebRTC" <pntaw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw>
List-Post: <mailto:pntaw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:04:39 -0000

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Simon Perreault <
simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:

> Le 2013-09-24 16:37, Oleg Moskalenko a écrit :
>
> The problem is practical. Our free STUN service is configured to not
> require auth for STUN. And clients almost never do use auth for STUN.
> It's the way STUN is being used that is problematic.
>

this is true, this is the same what I was saying. The existing WebRTC
clients simply are not able to authenticate properly the STUN Binding
request - they are hard-coded to unauthenticated Binding requests.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email