IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 11 July 2014 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 118F51B2B5F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 TmAb35RiCDJ7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22b.google.com (mail-vc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4761B2B55 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id id10so2494669vcb.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Uo4KM/DxO3so0RSCm9c6ufnK8fOMuRCpCcm5r5sf9bI=; b=lFh9w1ylBLnjbxNEkjCoGstF6S23DWQxcBbCJbAeB9qzC/N3PwyFmOW/I2uKEng2DG lSWnJtIKOtqq/O9uqf2kqmb2pa+Lbe7KA5xvPckng6n89TvB2BvORS2cOhgks6LfPcQ8 zUYbaF3WKYOKKFER5sdIizE7yQQkwsDVUBqL5ELStiyV04Zn9hDoCXCkVT7IgrefLrXb fBWkdN13lhsIoPQXd8f/pwfg3H0GnTWW3rgboxDFmjUDgZu2AvCL5Hr/TolSgNOciks6 /4NNpfw+acJtaudYz9S6IZ5pO76q5uC9aivrEOoz7vI6nizZXnb3GUU4DOS2+CG0ayNy uIGA==
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=Uo4KM/DxO3so0RSCm9c6ufnK8fOMuRCpCcm5r5sf9bI=; b=O2Ha07EjdWbIr35Ya0QfYJO1BYmtlpPuchznC1m0eiQVleCS4m4qfiRkJnQqiTOST7 Bg7VExYtia3n3vQEJC3GjpcI59V//Eq8mma45GjFBPBDkNJJf59SmzpSfM0LEZ6Ajtkl mR2EodzFcmQ4eEaW15QhKIzGd51VNJU1wD5jrBi0aUiXRX+7vt8hyHCjjXyIbyRm9TwL gw76ob0AuWhhDretUunCRE7J+3gUkl9ld5Y+LY9A/wQ0VhbWllH7Lg+gpvBgZME81AA6 kVg7c2sTeYIzd+b7R42qki7ZCsgfse8Orn80fHCg+dTEYFKzDJ2ujmnTcB5+86bEpdZx 92tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2l0ahRjmjJlz3oqAJq8iZWWbnMqEWrKPWmY+jE+9GOfQKSfb8g8mEnODbGU26VswOzGxh
X-Received: by 10.52.27.133 with SMTP id t5mr45299901vdg.9.1405095200918; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.27.8 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMPyT4y1v12O5pb7Khs2ge0pgjUugrBS0NoK8=SLOScxQ@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> <CABcZeBMPyT4y1v12O5pb7Khs2ge0pgjUugrBS0NoK8=SLOScxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:13:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3fWP0q2O58FirSYcV3Ldai4TcRoBQg7nDx4OTPc_evrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307d06e853ae5004fded38d0"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/6-cBH0sfGd8y6L1sXHhX6BOzZDs
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: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:13:24 -0000

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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.
>

Chrome supports ICE lite, with regular nomination. There were a lot of
requests for it.

>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email