Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.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 898F711E81B1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 nbvjTWcvYnP6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8015711E8145 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:56:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1630; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384394219; x=1385603819; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vD9bU5WPC7C1JePSHC1kiSc0lkn037RWoDZTvAJ1KK0=; b=LHX4TaTd8H30vLLPok4VTY4EM+04iatXmkRk1UNG1Uc9dkc9Aohc6dnw f9EZsn+ulD4ffsjSgTMDBL2DG2HKlWtB/C6KHBYPgEdt/NTlh3E438b43 QrNbJFsX47XirLzdp8Wmxg6/PjLXVGuY9dNShUxi5J/pNWagrnpqEMK4e k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAMgshFKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U75gS4EnFnSCJQEBAQQBAQE3NAsMBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgCBAENBQiHeQ2/cQSPLjEHBoMagREDqhuBaoE+gio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,696,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="284527797"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 01:56:56 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAE1uuZ0007233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:56:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.47]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:56:55 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: "Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>, "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)
Thread-Index: AQHO4KsuAuDKJP2rokSB4gWh4tKHlZoj9dAg
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:56:54 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A24263703@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A115B66@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <EC27E18D-9B08-4802-872B-572E866DBF24@cisco.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A115B99@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A115B99@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.42.165]
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] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:57:04 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:28 AM
> To: Paul Giralt (pgiralt)
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-
> rtcweb-transports-01)
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> > >
> > > So unless people have data that shows that "UDP blocked but direct TCP
> > allowed" is in itself a very rare setup (this is a question, I don't know
> that
> > either), I think ICE-TCP is definitely worthwhile for a WebRTC endpoint to
> > support.
> >
> > This is actually a very common firewall configuration for enterprise
> > customers. Outbound TCP is allowed but UDP is blocked (even if UDP is
> > initiated from the inside).
> >
> 
> Yes. UDP is blocked for sure and so is inbound TCP, so only outbound TCP is
> usable. However in many enterprises direct outbound TCP is not allowed but
> connection need to be made via an HTTP proxy. Do you (or someone else) have an
> estimate how often *direct* outbound TCP connections actually work ?

I have seen various deployments where customers use split-tunneling and have firewalls deployed in the Branch office itself. In those deployments *direct* outbound TCP connections are permitted. UDP traffic is blocked by default but allowed because of Firewall SIP ALG.

-Tiru.

> 
> > -Paul
> 
> Markus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb