IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Wed, 09 October 2013 17:02 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 286F921E80A5 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 1fZOe20jcrd5 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us3.mailhostbox.com [70.87.28.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77ECD21E809D for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.172.188.193]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1C82914D823C; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:01:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1381338074; bh=ZH16iGt5Ep1vpwdu1ixa/zTMlhW1CxIr17HGvdDMJZI=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YR3rxGqGUtTKNJh48eGdlrwS74jtIGeDNdH5TP4O/imttZSlWsEJzmO8Qe5TJ8gML vAk+lppvTQ0QPh6J3n4ON1KnJUtaNeO3Ue1UWIGnXuQroeuaG7WEE0gxoKDc4hUByb jxTOhcou1577pZWQ8YZe6RRdSrU/AE/fnst4hQzY=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Simon Perreault' <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>
In-Reply-To: <52544E0E.5080405@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:31:06 +0530
Message-ID: <003b01cec511$27e1abe0$77a503a0$@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: Ac7EU8SYNHwGb3I9RDK9g8AD3JEIJAAu9KNQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.52558BDA.00E1, 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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:02:19 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email