IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 6FE8711E819F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 6sY9C9GjaPIE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s15.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s15.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B452B21F9D87 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W24 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s15.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:01:29 -0700
X-TMN: [ZAouUi/1wypA/3Vbp8WGzApkrjYSeoJ4]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W24E9BC13E0410CC38EBA2B933F0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_72251298-e3a3-42af-90dd-d4acfa7eeea6_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:01:28 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQXhGRBJxFtAF5oUa5mR_BPrPisPphdS9hdYVOP3Ez+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130903094045.23789.92925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <5225B1AF.7050906@alvestrand.no>, <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>, <CAD6AjGQXhGRBJxFtAF5oUa5mR_BPrPisPphdS9hdYVOP3Ez+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2013 17:01:29.0222 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A145A60:01CEAD7E]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.
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, 09 Sep 2013 17:01:51 -0000

> I would specifically state that much of the challenges with NATs are
> resolved by preferring IPv6.
 [BA] That isn't what we've seen in practice, since IPv6 addresses (particularly tunnel addresses) may not be routable. So in practice, things seem to work better if IPv4 addresses are preferred and in fact, government profiles such as DISA UCR 2008 require the ability to configure an IPv4 preference.  
> I would also cover the use case of using TURN to bridge IPv6-only
> clients to communicate with IPv4 clients.
[BA] Yes, this is an important use case (and one that some ICE implementations don't support very well).  
> It would also be wise to reference RFC6540 to underscore that IPv6 use
> is a BCP of the IETF.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email