Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb
"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Mon, 15 August 2011 15:13 UTC
Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
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 1688021F8C57 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 5dbUfjbxmm0F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns.webway.se (edvina-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:d79::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE7221F8C56 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ns.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AD62842F; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:14:08 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W559E16682573CB4D4D269893260@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:14:08 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E59491C-459D-4D89-937D-5F38D4393D1C@edvina.net>
References: <21A83EF5-206B-47CA-A055-C86E590EBEEF@edvina.net>, <4E48BFE5.9080504@alvestrand.no> <BLU152-W559E16682573CB4D4D269893260@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb
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: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:13:24 -0000
15 aug 2011 kl. 11:24 skrev Bernard Aboba: > ICE is designed to handle dual stack operation. It can even deal with NAT64, if correctly implemented. > > Since ICE tests pairs before using them, there is no "happy eyeballs" problem with ICE (e.g. if an IPv6 route doesn't exist, the test will fail). > > That said, IPv6/IPv4 priorities may need some adjustment in some situations (e.g. if the IPv6 routes are more circuitous than IPv4, it may not make sense to prefer IPv6 over IPv4). > > That is one of the reasons that I am not enthusiastic about treating the SDP JSON blob as "opaque" (e.g. not subject to adjustment). Doing so without the ability > to adjust IPv6/IPv4 priorities will result in poor performance in dual stack operation in some cases. > > Well, if we use SRV records, the receiving part may use SRV to indicate preference. Now, if I have an IPv6 only client ICE won't help unless we force turn usage for IPv6 only clients so that they offer dual stack always (like the current recommendation for SIP). /O
- [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Dual stack RTCweb Olle E. Johansson