Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Harald Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 06:56 PM, Cb B wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Martin Thomson
>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 February 2014 22:06, Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For about a year now, i have been very concerned about IPv4 UDP.  It
>>>> has been increasingly associated with DDoS traffic [1],
>>> Is your concern that WebRTC will increase the potential for DoS (which
>>> would presume the DoS mitigation measures in ICE [RFC 5245] are
>>> insufficient), or is it just that UDP is so toxic to network operators
>>> that you predict it will be turned off?
>> My concern is that IPv4 UDP is so toxic it will be blocked.  It may be
>> wise to start SCTP in the standard from the start.
>
> The bad guys will follow wherever the ports are open (and are usually
> faster at writing code than the standards guys are at writing specs); so
> will the traversal artists.
>

Harald, the issue is not open ports. The issue is the entire transport
type is polluted.

> WebRTC over port 53, anyone?
>
> (DNS is the one UDP-based service that's so important to the Internet,
> it *cannot* be turned off unconditionally - so I expect that if UDP in
> general gets blocked, port 53 will be the port 80 of UDP-land.)
>

DNS runs over TCP as well.

But that's not the point.  The question is can we include native SCTP
as an option in  draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports?  What is the downside?

CB

> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb