Re: [rtcweb] ICE for dual stacks (new topic)

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 C379811E80FF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsBVDyb+Ysdf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com (mail-pz0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591EB11E80F6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so22250183pzk.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.36.166 with SMTP id r6mr46357603pbj.77.1317238295477; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com (mail-pz0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lh6sm3778510pbb.12.2011.09.28.12.31.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so22250122pzk.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.4.170 with SMTP id l10mr2241531pbl.3.1317238293867; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.40.197 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3E66F9FC-C37B-41E5-ACF4-E1CDEB6E4DC6@edvina.net>
References: <4E830E89.3050400@alvestrand.no> <3E66F9FC-C37B-41E5-ACF4-E1CDEB6E4DC6@edvina.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:31:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvtFaOn1D1StVVYbFJGa-U+84ZCwVU1oj4V9bPcqkWWrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5215f35972e4a04ae057073
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ICE for dual stacks (new topic)
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:28:46 -0000

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Olle E. Johansson <oej@edvina.net> wrote:

> My question is of course what the opinion is about this in regards to our
> work in rtcweb?
>
>
If we are mandating ICE we should use it for dual network clients. It is an
overkill if this is the only reason for doing it, but since we also doing
for NAT traversal and peer validation, this is the best solution currently
available.
_____________
Roman Shpount