Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Tue, 27 August 2013 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.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 33C0A11E8357 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 rCH6VzhdHX+2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8480111E833B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id u16so7173511iet.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=5YLRZ48iIS0VrD7FmCI5NiVcg+dsFF8XiL6zewCa7/c=; b=oI2ip9qlgtkky4yNXYMzuf3+MhHpyn/a6c8vlw96OhJ9e2AQOVQbj1/gGyYZzqC9GJ izauE32YyZKmaZEJqiXCDx82haDOalx8H9jE/4Eu1KaAU8bdSwT/Men1MYcaj+ariPwS lLKCQhJvYisnD/I0p2DvN1PVA+UYacCK1T4YVnc0fOxHXsAqa0OkH4lFAg6vFxJl3/gI D/vtPPh6I6Xwu3zg7sMZqbBpYqczh6WMo86EaXjeD+6bfP/CN7f9/be832JwBa00jE/f 6WQRuGdU5szModphxkAM8qWAhLvt5AtCQmm0uqNCnDRzQTIttm7PAFj2ny36N9ATxS4N Rhiw==
X-Received: by 10.42.66.146 with SMTP id p18mr50187ici.92.1377615357146; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.73.163.4] (mobile-166-147-096-195.mycingular.net. [166.147.96.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b16sm24837720igd.7.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
References: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0906A4@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <521CBD2E.9030905@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <521CBD2E.9030905@ericsson.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-55B9C333-1B14-4D90-BE2C-A6031CFD563D
Message-Id: <1713CFAA-2032-4893-A260-1F8D0FB81641@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206)
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:55:46 -0500
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
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, 27 Aug 2013 14:56:05 -0000

Agree that enterprises need this plus a few other TURN extensions. 

I support adoption as WG draft. 

- Alan -



On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:

> +1
> 
> 
> On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  
>> I would support the adoption of the NAT and Firewall considerations (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01) as a WG document. Or to be more precise, I very much agree with the requirements summarized in Section 5. Especially this one seems important to me:
>>  
>> o  connect to a TURN server via a HTTP proxy using the HTTP connect
>>       method,
>>  
>> If we want WebRTC to work from many corporate networks I’m aware of, it would not be possible without this as a fallback capability.
>>  
>> Markus
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Bernard Aboba
>> Sent: 21 August, 2013 00:44
>> To: Hutton, Andrew; rtcweb@ietf.org; Harald Alvestrand
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt
>>  
>> The NAT/Firewall considerations document does go into detail on the various traversal scenarios, which helps inform the discussion of what should or should not be supported in terms of transport.  Section 5 summarizes the recommendations as follows:
>> 
>> 5.  Requirements for RTCWEB-enabled browsers
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>    For the purpose of relaying RTCWEB media streams or data channels a
>>    browser needs to be able to
>>  
>>    o  connect to a TURN server via UDP, TCP and TLS,
>>  
>>    o  connect to a TURN server via a HTTP proxy using the HTTP connect
>>       method,
>>  
>>    o  connect to a TURN server via the HTTP(s) ports 80/443 instead of
>>       the default STUN ports 3478/5349,
>>  
>>    o  upgrade the HTTP proxy-relayed connection to the TURN server to
>>       use TLS,
>>  
>>    o  use the same proxy selection procedure for TURN as currently done
>>       for HTTP,
>>  
>>    o  switch the usage of the HTTP proxy-relayed connection with the
>>       TURN server from HTTP to STUN/TURN,
>>  
>>    o  use a preconfigured or standardized port range for UDP-based media
>>       streams or data channels,
>>  
>>    o  learn from the proxy configuration script about the presence of a
>>       local TURN server and use it for sending UDP traffic to the
>>       internet,
>>  
>>    o  support ICE-TCP for TCP-based direct media connection to the
>>       RTCWEB peer.
>>  
>> 
>> > From: andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com
>> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org; harald@alvestrand.no
>> > Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:31:28 +0000
>> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt
>> > 
>> > Section 2.2 "Middle Box Related Functions" should also I assume cover the case of using a HTTP Proxy or an enterprise TURN server and reference http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01 assuming we can get this adopted.
>> > 
>> > Regards
>> > Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb