IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 06 July 2014 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E881A03FD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 05:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40GSNu82lz3i for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 05:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F6C1A03FB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 05:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y10so3232525wgg.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=o2aZXlTJ0cqCaPZqo9HsdUHrE2JvCenvyCxBFnJ6wJA=; b=KPxKkL0E5IHQU4+05aFeXgJ11eHBjQiAk1WbV8s0fd+saKZB0CfCJFMQJrS2a1b3hu z9c9PYCzXeGoY6Jc8/dTKws+Od8v5coQs01trks5CdbSxXk5RL0E4604Z7jum9UcHVa1 fEU975LJnAM47fxpeR2n0Xppam0LTa8yOxj/fuMY5AChFIR+xLFPtPZKQiLLu/cXX+oQ Yn+UdDidLoSXlwNNBSc0YDKdm0fCzoMxpHkqz7nL7/N0rZixJ7zfeyNB06ZMN9O4I7oT i7iOUhrY9CbYJ9GjWhAyjTymEw3cy07cSmCa9NwfC3N25jUgn429boIH4oH+uqWIZT8D YC6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnywQbSTfJrJ/CQE7pwjm0PpZ0qEZZikY+WNkUB06OtppCoixfEvfEIZOkbku5As/1EqzSN
X-Received: by 10.194.90.228 with SMTP id bz4mr25459006wjb.65.1404648557219; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.57.202 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 05:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=CMAOwVF3=gNY9qrsTfsEwuiwvGZ_1SaS0waOUE83-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegf=kLtiUKoue=ahXP4fUhLJNNd8vCaQTECQxjK5R7cjLTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxv8s5-FNR-kq0C01H_Ev39cyBs5P__Pd-0cmCXDFYy-YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPV_iVcSmi+ndDaYY6zX=F7TRoSDFqe5hzJP3-NjZ7Y1w@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=CMAOwVF3=gNY9qrsTfsEwuiwvGZ_1SaS0waOUE83-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:08:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMPyT4y1v12O5pb7Khs2ge0pgjUugrBS0NoK8=SLOScxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bfcff4e49a66204fd853aa3"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/2pqRK4oTbBj0GJA3s2erNlIx-bM
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:09:19 -0000

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2014-07-06 6:53 GMT+02:00 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>:
> > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> According to RFC 5245: "If its peer has a lite implementation, an agent
> >> MUST use a regular nomination algorithm." So, this whole problem cannot
> >> occur.
>
> Good point, thanks. Anyhow I don't think I should trust clients :)
>
>
> > Nice catch. That actually changes things, since Firefox always uses
> > aggressive nomination and for performance reasons, I'm not excited
> > about moving to regular nomination. This seems like an argument
> > for perhaps forbidding ICE-Lite.
>
> I don't understand, shouldn't that be fixed in Firefox?


That's one way to fix it. The other is to require that WebRTC peers do
full ICE. I'd be interested in hearing what Chrome does.


This is not
> about performance but about real issues in scenarios with IPv4 and
> IPv6 in which Firefox talks to an ICE Lite peer.
>
> Should I address an issue? or is it already known?


Feel free to file an issue.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email