IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 11 July 2014 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 B70551A0AD4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 rNIwlzbpjS1R for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B33C61A0AD2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d1so16261wiv.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:02:57 -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; bh=eZbLFRhoPhpW8FP3PaGAShv3nk9b2Gpmu3B7F9N3VaQ=; b=Yu0u8WfTW7YtuLNI/wKeTzTXykStj8OmSHrh0597n5TLAe56MHRMoyNA6xnuMrbaYG 3+CEtCo0KtUOZzCxMdzqJWOUSCmCpee7ZrTHQ3gQeo1YRHhDrfH0Qa5uHVLDZjzDcdD3 pP3fwxBynxnkMvLKBDBYB45g23mwYMcT2dgUDnFpkeqcYWhomY+o2W+SSrCmwzOmk3ay sMkCy8isF3OCE2w/QLT7WPTy+Pfc75togxH2XPRaaaFHa0vQGHOkN2HaZBSa8rJuXk48 TRQ+0XBO5aWYJeo7G+80CWayysOqAVWo7ibVXomBGWseRjOml9pAVaz7Zbzvu97bfBwp dqMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNwI4Ph/wNaMzwJttUi0hnpORpwXEDSni+BadAI5dnxFZLianR3yz2ZHMyH4qhac+S2y74
X-Received: by 10.194.109.71 with SMTP id hq7mr154284wjb.114.1405098175915; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.128.12 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [207.106.178.163]
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3fWP0q2O58FirSYcV3Ldai4TcRoBQg7nDx4OTPc_evrA@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> <CALiegf=CMAOwVF3=gNY9qrsTfsEwuiwvGZ_1SaS0waOUE83-Ug@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMPyT4y1v12O5pb7Khs2ge0pgjUugrBS0NoK8=SLOScxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-3fWP0q2O58FirSYcV3Ldai4TcRoBQg7nDx4OTPc_evrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:02:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPrtVtH=aqACyUTmVb_x=ydoK4-_GHDmuqBHTjGUmdcVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0102e6e6a67f0504fdede981"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/W6_dlIeo_8ybAheSn1vGggvxAKE
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: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:03:05 -0000

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> That's one way to fix it. The other is to require that WebRTC peers do
>> full ICE. I'd be interested in hearing what Chrome does.
>>
>
> Chrome supports ICE lite, with regular nomination. There were a lot of
> requests for it.
>

OK. I withdraw my objection. We'll get on fixing the relevant piece of
Firefox.

-Ekr


>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Feel free to file an issue.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email