Re: [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 26 July 2011 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB7821F8A91 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FRiUtdTpYrUz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDBA21F8A80 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so673496vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.110.103 with SMTP id hz7mr5236522vdb.313.1311705115038; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cg6sm359075vdc.17.2011.07.26.11.31.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so697260vxi.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.107.72 with SMTP id ha8mr5491698vdb.455.1311705112788; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.157.8 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.157.8 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP934DFCD6525C99A879E5E893320@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP934DFCD6525C99A879E5E893320@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:31:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPvvaa+DqFyj7zo3rKiHnFADH_veeRA870SO98YWJyTFJY3yxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec547c74b4c3d9a04a8fd25dd
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:31:56 -0000

+1

Emil

-- sent from my mobile
On Jul 26, 2011 8:24 PM, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is indeed a real use case.
>
> Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
>
> >We have something in there with a NAT... but I don't think we have a use
case that covers the situation where one or both users is behind a NAT or
firewall that blocks UDP entirely (which fortunately also covers some of the
NAT cases where ICE doesn't succeed). This would require media over TCP...
something that I believe some of the implementations have already tackled in
different ways, but there's no use case and no drafts proposing which
solution to choose either.
> >
> >Matthew Kaufman
> >_______________________________________________
> >rtcweb mailing list
> >rtcweb@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb