Re: [rtcweb] Please require user consent for data channels

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2015-07-20 15:32 GMT+02:00 Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>:

> > The fact that the client announces its (probably) private VPN addresses
> > to the remote peer does not mean that it also reveals the associated
> > public reflexive IP. That just happens if the client performs STUN
> > procedures over that interface, which is exactly the issue being
> > discussed (at least right now).
>
> If you can find a server-reflexive candidate on the VPN interface, it
> means you can talk to the Internet using that interface, using that
> server-reflexive IP address. How is that private knowledge at all? How
> do you expect to keep your server-reflexive address private but still
> use it for communication?
>

Ok, let's simplify this subject:

- Computer with two default routes (A and B) and a private network route
(C).
- A is the preferred default route one so has priority in the routing table.
- Every packet whose destination is not C network should be sent over A.
...
- or not? should a specific app override it?

 This seems more a moral issue.




> The routing table is *not* overridden by explicitly binding to an
> interface.
>

I meant "using a secondary default route". Sorry for the confusion.


> >     That is a valid concern, and the answer to it is MIF.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, what does MIF stand for?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/documents/
>
> The MIF WG is working on exactly this kind of problem. They are
> developing an API for solving precisely this kind of interface
> preference problem. IMHO ICE could perhaps be extended to make use of
> this API. But I see it as "just" an enhancement.


Good to know. Thanks.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>