Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 04 October 2011 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 A54F221F8F1E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Zd89hQCut3XH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDA321F8E11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.100] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p94N2g8V087421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:02:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CEEC8BB-FC3D-4424-A2D6-D5F96E3DDBDE@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:02:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D923BE54-845A-4F8E-B7C5-3F60BC2DA36A@vpnc.org>
References: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com>, <CALiegfmnxO+BrfycOmL=hptBFdcEpsLeBn=zsJTX=ivKBBumWw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W139AA2913C1CFFDB50726193FB0@phx.gbl> <4CEEC8BB-FC3D-4424-A2D6-D5F96E3DDBDE@cisco.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:27:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:59:49 -0000

On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> Paul Hoffman (CC'd) might have some interesting stats about operating a public STUN server. 

- Ran stunserver.org for a while because Cullen and Rohan thought it might be interesting.

- My ISP (a friend) complained about the traffic. We could see huge amounts, even though no one had asked.

- I transferred the domain to Cullen to run.

- A year after I turned off stun at the IP address that stunserver.org used to run on, the ISP's firewall says that the port gets *much* more traffic than vpnc.org and imc.org combined web and mail. Note that on the stunserver.org web page, we explicitly said that people should put our domain name in, not the IP address. This is all traffic that is getting no reply.

Conclusion: STUN is probably riper for tragedy of the commons than other protocols due to negligent developers who don't care if their clients keep hitting dead servers.

--Paul Hoffman