Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Harald Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 06:04 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Why not use Port Control Protocol (PCP) to control Firewalls and NATs
>> explicitly?
>
> We can switch to that as soon as 100% of firewalls support it - until then,
> we have to be able to rely on other techniques.
>
> That's the deployment problem in a nutshell... I don't understand how the
> first firewall gets an advantage from having PCP, given that none of the
> apps support it, and I don't understand how the first app gets an advantage
> from having PCP, given that no firewalls support it.
>
> If PCP succeeds despite my misgivings, we can certainly revisit the issue.
>

I am also pessimistic on PCP being deployed and would rather not
confuse the WebRTC community into thinking PCP is requirement for
WebRTC.  I believe TURN is much better solution.  As mobile network
operator, i feel much more comfortable offering TURN as a solution to
customers than PCP.

CB

>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On 3/11/13 9:56 AM, "Hutton, Andrew"
>> <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI - We submitted this draft today it relates to the requirements in the
>>> use case draft for rtcweb to work in the presence of firewalls and http
>>> proxies etc.
>>>
>>> Look forward to feedback and hope that this can be considered for
>>> adoption by the working group.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>> Sent: 11 March 2013 06:01
>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>> Subject: I-D Action:
>>> draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Title           : RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and
>>> HTTP
>>> proxies
>>>         Author(s)       : Thomas Stach
>>>                           Andrew Hutton
>>>                           Justin Uberti
>>>         Filename        :
>>> draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
>>>         Pages           : 8
>>>         Date            : 2013-03-11
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    This document describes mechanism to enable media stream
>>>    establishment in the presence of NATs, firewalls and HTTP proxies.
>>>    HTTP proxy and firewall policies applied in many private network
>>>    domains introduce obstacles to the successful establishment of media
>>>    stream via RTCWEB.  This document examines some of these policies and
>>>    develops requirements on the web browsers designed to provide the
>>>    best possible chance of media connectivity between RTCWEB peers.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-consider
>>> ations
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
>>> -00
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb