From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>,
 "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>,
 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action:
 draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOHoKpQPNB80XASUa1nEzDk7aFy5ig5ncwgACByzA=
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:57:55 +0000
Message-ID: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22403B3DF@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <513E146D.4060009@alvestrand.no>
 <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B3A9@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
 <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06895013@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06895013@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action:
 draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
Precedence: list

|It is not required for an ISP to deploy a TURN server the webrtc TURN serv=
er=20
|is much more likely to be deployed by the web application provider which w=
ill
|instruct the browser to use it when accessing its service.

Right, and the application provider could be also an enterprise hosting a T=
URN server for a number of reasons in addition to NAT/firewall traversal --=
 media anchoring, monitoring, recording etc. I think TURN servers aren't go=
ing away, especially with WebRTC where the session signaling protocol betwe=
en the browser and the web server could be proprietary (and encrypted), mak=
ing ALG techniques in NATs/Firewalls/SBCs fail miserably.

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf O=
f Hutton, Andrew
|Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:28 AM
|To: Reinaldo Penno (repenno); Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
|Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-con=
siderations-00.txt
|
|On: 11 March 2013 14:03 Reinaldo Penno (repenno) Wrote:
|
|
|>
|> I'm sure STUN and TURN servers are not universally deployed ('100%') in
|> ISP networks either.
|
|It is not required for an ISP to deploy a TURN server the webrtc TURN serv=
er is much more likely to be
|deployed by the web application provider which will instruct the browser t=
o use it when accessing its
|service.
|
|>
|> But I'm not proposing dropping STUN/TURN in lieu of PCP, but using PCP
|> as
|> an additional technique. Maybe you misunderstood what I was proposing.
|>
|
|Understood but would need to understand what the benefits of doing so woul=
d be.
|
|Regards
|Andy
|_______________________________________________
|rtcweb mailing list
|rtcweb@ietf.org
|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb