Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)

Simon Perreault <> Wed, 13 November 2013 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F5C21E80B2 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WO6MkYHwNMmL for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5642511E8107 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:d5d4:b853:2212:f683]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B299F403FF; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:58:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:58:10 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:58:25 -0000

Le 2013-11-13 14:43, a écrit :
> So unless people have data that shows that "UDP blocked but direct TCP allowed" is in itself a very rare setup (this is a question, I don't know that either)

A data point: I was a user on such a network not long ago. It was an 
enterprise network and the enterprise in question is one that regularly 
sends people to IETF meetings. The firewall device (which is of a kind 
that is fairly common in enterprise networks) could not do stateful UDP 
connection tracking, so they just decided to block everything. Outbound 
TCP was allowed.

> I think ICE-TCP is definitely worthwhile for a WebRTC endpoint to support.

I get it now. Yes, for client-server connections, ICE-TCP makes sense. 
For peer-to-peer, not so much.

DTN made easy, lean, and smart -->
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        -->
STUN/TURN server               -->