IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Thu, 13 February 2014 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 8D7DD1A03DF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:45:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 O2nPJTGY1LW3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eeph.com (mail.eeph.com [192.135.198.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE921A03D7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:826a:d0:5075:df81:a4d2:5ddd] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:826a:d0:5075:df81:a4d2:5ddd]) (Authenticated sender: matthew@eeph.com) by mail.eeph.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 141AA280E81 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52FD12E0.70205@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:45:52 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAD6AjGRiQ1UF5n3JG9HPRQFM+TD54Xz-dpTn5u9bX+__BMfesQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVbZp7yBvpY1ARuaBXS=TOipY=BhXzrd=h5DY-76oF9Pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSxS4jNRGotsE_no0XhewvDqcVZ+Kmx1aMW9qorqSKR+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSxS4jNRGotsE_no0XhewvDqcVZ+Kmx1aMW9qorqSKR+w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/GvjcfM8hBMwbjlVZA9oY8QH2FNY
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:45:54 -0000

On 2/13/2014 9:56 AM, 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.
>

Why SCTP? Why not "Just like UDP only restricted to having SRTP inside" 
or even "just like UDP only a different protocol number that we like 
better"?

(Assuming that this is a good idea at all)

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email