Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Thu, 10 October 2013 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 5E4E221F9385 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.839
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.839 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.760, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YMglbibY6PPP for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us3.mailhostbox.com [70.87.28.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6451311E818A for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.99.194]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7B2358693D5; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:40:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1381426833; bh=V44OEWpMsOeu6zlHpS1vl5UeKkIoq/MGnDwrRHAy5DI=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=d2ojIMIWfyEmi21iN2f9qyF4D6sGWUNyog0t8Nf42Q+90rrpWphCbQufLup4LAw7a Vbg5Xc29CPuEGqafUWhSbhbtIhJiIe6cVRS9fy/6NdsWi0Usf0DZCkVoSoR1ZjaMcA UZmWJx/YXUEFL8OfXygY2mMzPo8Z4mgL1LOmA/+4=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: "'Chenxin \(Xin\)'" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>, <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, <pntaw@ietf.org>
References: <CAGTXFp92jSzQz05uHngzscz88n=fT_JPbEvQRxgeUUqPVRQUyQ@mail.gmail.com> <52244DD7.1020900@alvestrand.no> <BLU405-EAS183E36A927CA42270B6936D93300@phx.gbl> <522590EE.7070508@alvestrand.no> <C632A223-A55A-47F4-B083-9BDC447DA959@cisco.com> <52262657.3080208@alvestrand.no> <A2C315DB-1882-4BD1-A8C0-E8AF7DEA48F4@cisco.com> <00ca01cec387$f881cae0$e98560a0$@co.in> <BLU406-EAS274696C3D9DFE505F96B8E393130@phx.gbl> <004201cec44f$381a47f0$a84ed7d0$@co.in> <52544E0E.5080405@viagenie.ca> <003b01cec511$27e1abe0$77a503a0$@co.in> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0D672F@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE039768081AC9@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE039768081AC9@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:10:17 +0530
Message-ID: <004e01cec5df$cf8daaf0$6ea900d0$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHOp7eh97CWvanNyUO4L+fWrmoYupmyO7sAgADeqQCAAKUrgIAADPKAgAAjEICANUrLAIAAB1IAgAGHKgCAAAkXAIABes4AgAAIDACAARCqIIAA8XlQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.5256E691.0071, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.155
Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:41:46 -0000

Hi all,

As I mentioned below, ICE-TCP is not replacement for TURN but ICE-TCP helps
for the browser-to-browser media flow without middle box (TURN Server).
Also, please note that both browsers behind UDP blocked firewall is not the
worst case scenario for WebRTC firewall requirements. The actual worst case
scenario is that both browsers are behind HTTP only firewalls and in this
scenario, both TURN server and ICE-TCP will not work. There is a need of one
more solution.

AFAIK, HTTP allowing firewall is not happen by mis-configuration but it is
policy of the given network. It is more appropriate to pass the media over
HTTP based mechanism rather than finding the workarounds. The advantage with
Media over HTTP is that HTTP friendly firewall shall filter out media from
HTTP traffic if required. IMO, Media over HTTP based mechanism has to be
used for HTTP only firewall (Sec 3.2.3 of
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements) requirement and ICE-TCP shall
be used for (Sec 3.2.3 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements)
requirement. 

Thanks
Partha  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Chenxin (Xin)
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:23 AM
> To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com; partha@parthasarathi.co.in;
> simon.perreault@viagenie.ca; pntaw@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
> 
> Hi
> 
>  I agree that ICE-TCP should not replace TURN as a requirement for
> every browser to implement. If we need support ICE-TCP , should we
> support TURN-TCP too? I do not think ICE-TCP will be more useful
> without TURN-TCP in the scenario where both browsers is under the NAT
> /FW which block UDP.
> 
>   I believe the user 1->TCP->TURN server 1->UDP->TURN server 2->TCP-
> >user 2, which Harald wrote before is workable. It is easy to tunnel
> the data internally if we need use the same server, right?
> 
> Best Regards,
>      Xin
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> >Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:30 AM
> >To: partha@parthasarathi.co.in; simon.perreault@viagenie.ca;
> pntaw@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I think the clarification is that it is not possible to initiate TCP
> connections from
> >the "outside" of any NAT or most of the firewalls. So even if the FW
> does not
> >block TCP per se, it only allows TCP connections to be opened from the
> "inside".
> >
> >I believe ICE-TCP will typically work only in cases where at least one
> of the
> >endpoints is NOT behind a NAT or FW. In cases where both endpoints are
> behind
> >firewalls completely blocking all UDP, the only option is to use a
> relay (TURN)
> >with endpoint initiated TCP connections. ICE allows us to optimize
> connectivity
> >in special cases, but I think we need also to make the worst case
> scenarios to
> >work. For that reason I don't see that ICE-TCP could replace TURN as a
> >requirement for every browser to implement. In some specific
> deployments it
> >may be that TURN does not get used much or at all, but browsers are
> used
> >everywhere.
> >
> >Markus
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> >> Of ext Parthasarathi R
> >> Sent: 09 October, 2013 20:01
> >> To: 'Simon Perreault'; pntaw@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
> >>
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> I have seen only two requirements in
> >> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11, NAT/FW that blocks
> UDP
> >> and FW that only allows http. The relevant draft snippet is attached
> as a note
> >> of this mail. I'm discussing about NAT/FW that blocks UDP
> requirement. In
> >> case you foresee that the requirement is not detailed now, we need
> to sort
> >> out the requirement first before discussion the solutions.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Partha
> >>
> >> PS: In draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11 snippet,
> >>
> >> 3.2.2.  Simple Video Communication Service, NAT/FW that blocks UDP
> >>
> >> 3.2.2.1.  Description
> >>
> >>    This use-case is almost identical to the Simple Video
> Communication
> >>    Service use-case (Section 3.2.1).  The difference is that one of
> the
> >>    users is behind a NAT that blocks UDP traffic.
> >>
> >> 3.2.3.  Simple Video Communication Service, FW that only allows http
> >>
> >> 3.2.3.1.  Description
> >>
> >>    This use-case is almost identical to the Simple Video
> Communication
> >>    Service use-case (Section 3.2.1).  The difference is that one of
> the
> >>    users is behind a FW that only allows http traffic.
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf
> >> > Of Simon Perreault
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:55 PM
> >> > To: pntaw@ietf.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
> >> >
> >> > Le 2013-10-08 19:52, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> >> > > I understand that two WebRTC endpoint are behind firewall
> scenario
> >> > wherein
> >> > > TURN server is unavoidable. Most of the SP & Enterprise
> deployment
> >> > wherein
> >> > > one of the endpoint is not surely going to be behind UDP
> blocking
> >> > Firewall,
> >> > > mandating TURN server as a mechanism is overkill. As ICE is
> mandated
> >> > in
> >> > > WebRTC, supporting ICE-TCP should not be such a complex
> activity.
> >> >
> >> > A firewall that blocks UDP but allows incoming TCP is not very
> common,
> >> > is it?
> >> >
> >> > Or did I miss something?
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> > --
> >> > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> >> > NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> >> > STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > pntaw mailing list
> >> > pntaw@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pntaw mailing list
> >> pntaw@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
> >_______________________________________________
> >pntaw mailing list
> >pntaw@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw