Re: [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies
"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Mon, 11 March 2013 17:00 UTC
Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 2B50F11E816B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, 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 8b8ercTyWjdG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827A411E8146 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 8EB921EB855A; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:00:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.94]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:00:24 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>, Binod <binod.pg@oracle.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies
Thread-Index: AQHOHnG+BNg15CdYtE6BJoqWVgtjVpigm3EAgAAatnA=
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:00:23 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06894866@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <513DFFC2.1000605@oracle.com> <20130311172156.11de6c97@lminiero-acer>
In-Reply-To: <20130311172156.11de6c97@lminiero-acer>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies
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, 11 Mar 2013 17:00:38 -0000
Hi, By coincidence we submitted a draft on this subject just this morning it can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Lorenzo Miniero > Sent: 11 March 2013 12:22 > To: Binod > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies > > Il giorno Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:31:06 +0530 > Binod <binod.pg@oracle.com> ha scritto: > > > I was scanning the webrtc drafts to figure out what is > > specified regarding NAT traversal, firewall and proxies. > > > > draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements > > <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and- > requirements/> > > mentions > > 1) NAT/FW that blocks UDP : > > > > Ok, This is achieved by supporting ICE-TCP > > > > 2) FW that only allows http: > > > > How is this supported? > > > > What about enterprises that only support proxies? > > > > In the google group discussion, Justin was mentioning > > that browser could connect with a proxy (http connect) > > even for TURN traffic and also mentioned supporting > > an enterprise TURN server. > > > > Will this make into one of the webrtc rfcs? > > > > thanks, > > Binod. > > > I submitted an individual draft (now expired) a few months ago that > tried to address this exact issue. From the discussion that came out, > which you can find in the archives, the consensus was basically to rely > on TURN (e.g. on port 443 to look like HTTPS) or on nothing at all, as > using some kind of HTTP fallback could have been seen as "overkill". > Besides, trying to pass through more restrictive firewalls by, well, > fooling them was seen as trying to bypass policies configured by > network administrators, so not acceptable for some. > > Lorenzo > > -- > Lorenzo Miniero, COB > > Meetecho s.r.l. > Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools > http://www.meetecho.com > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies Binod
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN, NAT and Proxies Hutton, Andrew