Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)
"Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil> Tue, 12 March 2013 14:45 UTC
Return-Path: <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
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 D077B21F87F6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 rX0I7R+kzcGv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40AE21F85D4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3B.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.151) by ucolhp3l.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:45:39 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP9B.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.10.116]) by UCOLHP3B.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.151]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:45:40 +0000
From: "Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thread-Index: AQHOHyb5/9U6NQLV2EWTHf5XQuc2iJiiH4rg
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:45:39 +0000
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF49A64948@ucolhp9b.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06895013@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B8ED@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623BBBCD@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <513F2FD9.4000308@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <513F2FD9.4000308@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.62.4]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01CE1F0E.BAD29850"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:45:57 -0000
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Folks: I also agree with Harald on his proposal that PCP would be considered later. In addition, I like to add the following: 1. Let PCP becomes an RFC. 2. Let there be some use cases/call-flows (as a PCP call-flow IETF draft is there) using PCP for FW/NAT crossing by RTCWEB, SIP (audio/video) conferencing, and related real-time applications. Once above two items are completed, a separate draft using PCP for FW/NAT crossing by RTCWEB applications can be written as soon as possible including co-existing with ICE/STUN/TURN complementing each other capabilities. Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:39 AM To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt On 03/12/2013 02:42 AM, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote: > Hi, > > ICE/STUN/TURN and PCP are not really competitors or alternatives to each other. > > A browser or any other client will anyway need to implement ICE/STUN/TURN to work its way through non-PCP supporting NATs, which will be the majority for a long time even if PCP became succesfull. The benefit of the ICE/STUN/TURN approach is that every organization or individual who deploys NATs or firewalls will not need to deploy STUN and TURN servers, but they can be deployed independently e.g. by the WebRTC service provider. > > However, PCP, even gradually deployed, would still be useful as well. As Reinaldo is saying, it would improve robustness it produces explict NAT mappings with explicit durations. Also, it can serve as an alternative to STUN/TURN in case the browser happens to be behind a PCP-capable NAT/FW. So, PCP can be seen as an optimization and should be used when it is available. PCP can also help clients behind NAT/FW to reduce their keep-alive rate which is applicable to WebRTC as well. However, as depicted in [1], knowing when a client can entirely rely on PCP is not always so easy to detect. > > I hope we will see PCP deployment especially in the mobile/cellular access, but as many people have pointed out, the success rate of this type of protocols has been quite low. So it will be a nice surprise rather than something I would count on if it happens. I absolutely agree with this summary about the usefulness and status of PCP. My concern with RTCWEB at the moment is getting things out the door with all the features we really need to have, and as few additional features as possible. That's why I don't want to add PCP into the mix at this time - once we're finished with the basic stuff, we can discuss adding support for new features at our leisure, but making the specs more complex than they currently are really should be done only when it's a really important feature that needs adding. Harald _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Simon Perreault
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-… Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-… Hadriel Kaplan