IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Sun, 06 July 2014 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BD61A02BB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 01:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2C0bxT9JoE6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 01:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (mail-qc0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76BB91A02B9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 01:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r5so2700787qcx.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 01:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VF7wi73APZQILB9hMS0o3ShICfPhf8sfWO7njBFoXYo=; b=e7j337wnFkEdnBlKCub3Par6H6ZyEN5ZYuUuLKjoPZX1rd4zFkTIvi0wYXsRFkQ0q1 oxnAQxAs0ChG7NOaI4pPhhnt5G37+3yYQlvqJqarlr8kBwsDtuIvdQrpUpe48pj67SXc 3Ez0UglCcng7YuXuNQ8l8CoPQ0e5hpPZ5xB5MbERZxi2rkceL/gbpv/uYA8Mz/G0RR3t v9/LrglFR9jtVjmtVck2KPlQr5XWXJ/e7YDZSx76+6r+uO8Qre62kOm7Gb+EpkNbib1J 2aND3+sJDWEqAst7V72TPa9UQmgPJRIhO6qPAeG1pWXsxeLRpBY4FDngY7oZqrrevs3k jpIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmtDdxM4L65Ss/t68kXAd0NqgJd/q3C62crYL+A+D+V0asKgCuz6NFEy71M+qp9WaKQhef9
X-Received: by 10.140.88.230 with SMTP id t93mr23592165qgd.47.1404634611473; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 01:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.234.131 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 01:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPV_iVcSmi+ndDaYY6zX=F7TRoSDFqe5hzJP3-NjZ7Y1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegf=kLtiUKoue=ahXP4fUhLJNNd8vCaQTECQxjK5R7cjLTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxv8s5-FNR-kq0C01H_Ev39cyBs5P__Pd-0cmCXDFYy-YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPV_iVcSmi+ndDaYY6zX=F7TRoSDFqe5hzJP3-NjZ7Y1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 10:16:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=CMAOwVF3=gNY9qrsTfsEwuiwvGZ_1SaS0waOUE83-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/RURhIIEZg3qw8P--tlT30w6r60E
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:16:54 -0000

2014-07-06 6:53 GMT+02:00 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>>
>> According to RFC 5245: "If its peer has a lite implementation, an agent
>> MUST use a regular nomination algorithm." So, this whole problem cannot
>> occur.

Good point, thanks. Anyhow I don't think I should trust clients :)


> Nice catch. That actually changes things, since Firefox always uses
> aggressive nomination and for performance reasons, I'm not excited
> about moving to regular nomination. This seems like an argument
> for perhaps forbidding ICE-Lite.

I don't understand, shouldn't that be fixed in Firefox? This is not
about performance but about real issues in scenarios with IPv4 and
IPv6 in which Firefox talks to an ICE Lite peer.

Should I address an issue? or is it already known?

Thanks a lot.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email