Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

Hadriel Kaplan <> Fri, 30 September 2011 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD95B21F8B17 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.358
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FEDpMOEser2B for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E836421F8B05 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:40:17 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:40:18 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
To: Richard Shockey <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
Thread-Index: AQHMfwmGBJpjUg7wrk6AbHnaTx82fQ==
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:40:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <><><><><>, <>, <> <BLU152-W62B7F2AC3F0D5B6E277CB993F00@phx.gbl> <> <02f701cc7efe$8b44b2f0$a1ce18d0$@us>
In-Reply-To: <02f701cc7efe$8b44b2f0$a1ce18d0$@us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:37:28 -0000

On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> RS> And at the rate this discussion is going it is reasonable to assume that
> it might be 10 years before RTCWEB might be able to reach consensus. But for
> what it's worth the end of POTS/PSTN is under active discussion. If for no
> other reason than the  backplanes of the 5E's and DMS 500's are literally
> cracking at a increasing pace. Remember 3G mobile networks still use TDM
> Switches. Bernard's point is well taken RTCWEB shouldn't worry about
> interconnection some gateway or border element will normalize that problem
> in some way shape or form. 

But it's not "POTS" that's really the point - it's the "PSTN".  From the perspective of this group, the "PSTN" is everything reachable through SIP service providers: every cell/mobile phone, DSL/Cablemodem MTA, PRI trunk, SIP Enterprise trunk, POTS landline, etc.  There are more of those right now than there are devices on the Internet.[1]  And way more of those than number of users and Web Browsers on the Internet.[2]


[1] Based on several sources which claim approx 5 Billion mobile phones, 1.2 Billion POTS lines, and hundreds of millions of MTAs, and untold number of PRI and SIP trunks; which I'm guesstimating totals about 7 Billion.  Compared to approx 5 Billion current devices on the Internet, according to (though they include things like printers and cameras in their counts)

[2] Based on ~2 Billion users, from and