Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less applications

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 21 September 2011 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
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 72D5B21F8C0C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 JcXJQ+BcYKRP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB14121F8BF8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:02:16 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.150]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:02:16 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less applications
Thread-Index: AQHMeD0o3MP/2iiGskyr4mcVoApBAA==
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:02:16 +0000
Message-ID: <855B9078-A81F-45D9-B12F-46CC46C15B60@acmepacket.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB21D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648CEB@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB2F0@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648D0F@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB3E5@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4E70D2E6.1000809@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBORi5NLSsztnMfkwL43p9oKG9mi6e1WWOaiafAO_DpTVg@mail.gmail.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D45FA3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBO9hUSYZhLrcfbaK9HLGXq-q1EvqWOy6-gAN5xom6Z2-A@mail.gmail.com> <092401cc749b$8fd64940$af82dbc0$@com> <CABcZeBPgRD6kb2gg=m9NckSa1wrzwzJS6527nYqFG34b0cjfgQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E765E4A.3050801@alvestrand.no> <7532C74D-D0D7-474D-80C7-61C07E9290AA@edvina.net> <2B265ADC-44C3-48CC-95A6-B90ED6E42FA7@acme packet.com> <7D7982AF-7478-4AFD-9F39-ED04A43FEF53@edvina.net> <673BCA71-B624-4DCA-B681-7012E6F9D202@acmepacket.com> <4E799E18.30000@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E799E18.30000@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <7D9E390C31C9B542960ECB4CD34D45A2@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less applications
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: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:59:51 -0000

On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> If I interpret this correctly, you are arguing that an RTCWEB
> implementation shall support a remote end-point that doesn't support RTCP.

Yes, although we could make that allowance/exception for audio only - in fact, G.711 only if it comes down to it.

Ultimately there is no indication in SIP/SDP that an device does not support RTCP.  So what would you have the Rtcweb browser do?  Once it starts sending media if it doesn't receive RTCP within time X then terminate the session automatically?  Would users be ok with that?


> I see congestion control for media as a MUST have due to the attack
> vector that exist in RTCWEB implementations. A Webservice that has
> sufficient amount of users visiting it can create additional
> PeerConnections beyond what is necessary for the service that is the
> front. These additional PeerConnections can be used to create traffic
> load over selected paths in the Internet by selecting a good pairs of
> peers to establish these overload streams. If there is no congestion
> control, or at least isn't reasonably fair sharing it could push large
> amount of other traffic out of the way on the paths selected by the
> attacker to be targeted.

If I understand your concern correctly, you're worried about the case of a malicious site controlling unsuspecting users as a botnet, making calls to each other and flooding the network paths between?

That can happen anyway: all ends are under control of the malicious site, so ICE will succeed... and even if the media layer starts throttling itself in a few seconds, the script can just keep creating/destroying PeerConnections, feeding new SDP to trigger port number changes, etc. And do so for video and audio and data channels concurrently or intermixed.

-hadriel