[rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 14:57 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 7175D1A06FE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:57:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.925
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 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=-0.547, 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 iyv1zsdmfg5E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x232.google.com (mail-ob0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD90C1A025A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id wp18so1119453obc.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 06:57:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=J9dfvgQUZnIA08VgZVka9E/4fRDl3BK0NQ6EC+GmFCM=; b=YffJvBoMH71eibdGrArPY7rx0vD81QfGPSCSJc6oTQWWT56Gbvuzz5K0/GOMiGR7jI 3gSYLGjlTRhIK1K9wc1FRzDZ8ZgneRQlxMpsb51zmHXm5bh6Kd48PiFqkwOrFmc9ERmo vXY1k5F2TEhqrCd1J4232NAy98F6lJ4j68UKqIQbstm3WVJ9e7QS1rOHgXmoygXbbpgR 7pNNd+5ETueX7SSo8BCjw/GztY4ocMBvnh3FD5Y0otmt42tt9f2h0dcmYVGWTUAAUTqM 4tYiJfLzYfCIXh1BQhoIJyEyHojY/h8y4EQyQ7wS6+GuTVxGJ9PuFy/nuuKzdghOGxxD CldQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=J9dfvgQUZnIA08VgZVka9E/4fRDl3BK0NQ6EC+GmFCM=; b=VxQCZE9I4V1WlKPmddQRFWx+gBr3pCq53X+wCND7Hb7NhUm5fZt6Oup+orBDgpWQ2t PnrtsfnLoO0rpi/HDG18qKdmIZsUWeg8PtcGnXIHwDEyChrkSc7TFN8SUcKWZxD1KgTQ mh2VbacVXrZMA5Pj8ZzFif0+dhqL8g+6AbIlw3uPJAr0/dqlJeSqBzko8Kwf2bhZhQUy JXOGibPEf9jWb3KXbU3RKoEsyjX07FLqvQjsBsAJB4e1xWNr6WPT6LczHhIhCxZU4hI/ +wxByUD+q0/bE7fbKVs2x85dr8NwuAeSHMuleVxijuO79UHTUY9KQ4Snp1jPYRBFwTHy Spcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6hemHyNhRuafu8Yp6WStsPwusqlVWtO2TXarWQTq15MnG5gF+cZyS1gdQ3dey8Gys2hxz16pH4dW+YjMOQp6cra0GtulmkTNnHhiS4doc7AzzjXgb/fd1ppIAztLpHd/cN5NrDfW7UidksZLvVV/gZHsOM6LlICXanNRqLBYLz3HqtUQVPd61HwCI7aeMQBzaqUOr
X-Received: by 10.182.107.232 with SMTP id hf8mr765478obb.75.1394031429831; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 06:57:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.96.230 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:56:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:56:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3vukxXzUN5ttEnJ0dTu2YX=N7qdPDqzy8iXaRwMuH7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6f9c2f5c3804f3dd3cff
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/EmVQxzJ2aXVSkMd0G5K2gX-CP2A
Subject: [rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:57:15 -0000

>From the transports draft, S 3.4:


   In order to deal with situations where one party is on an IPv4
   network and the other party is on an IPv6 network, TURN extensions
   for IPv6 [RFC6156 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6156>] MUST be supported.


I think this needs clarification. Does this mean that we should
allocate v6 candidates from all v4 interfaces (for compat with v6-only
endpoints), as well as allocate v4 candidates from all v6 interfaces
(for compat with v4-only endpoints), and if so, which path (v6-to-TURN
or v6-from-TURN) should be prioritized?


Note also that these v4->v6 or v6->v4 allocations will be dependent on
the SSODA work being discussed in TRAM, since this is the only way to
allocate v4 and v6 TURN from a single host candidate.


Also worth noting:

With the current default settings, a single STUN and TURN server, and
assuming a dual-stack host with two network interfaces, a
PeerConnection with audio, video, and data will generate

5 (components) * 4 (local-udp+stun+turn+local-tcp) * 2 (interfaces) *
2 (IP protocols) = 80 candidates