IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 11 March 2013 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 6240521F8E5A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, 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 g02SdqHG-Vin for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FDA21F8E53 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.24]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LgsnI-1UZZoY022o-00oBlG for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:34:28 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2013 19:34:27 -0000
Received: from dhcp-1077.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO dhcp-1077.meeting.ietf.org) [130.129.16.119] by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 11 Mar 2013 20:34:27 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+/zG4nvoq/kMNOnnAOswxeujApiMum58K6Wnk9B9 JZmv17uIOMLpcJ
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B3A9@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:34:25 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32A40EF5-E012-49CF-AC73-6F354700B900@gmx.net>
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B3A9@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-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: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:34:31 -0000

On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote:

>>> Why not use Port Control Protocol (PCP) to control Firewalls and NATs
>>> explicitly?
>> We can switch to that as soon as 100% of firewalls support it - until
>> then, we have to be able to rely on other techniques.
> 
> I'm sure STUN and TURN servers are not universally deployed ('100%') in
> ISP networks either.

STUN and TURN don't require any support from ISPs. Both protocols are used today. 
Your co-worker Jonathan Rosenberg worked on these mechanisms and Cisco also supports them ;-)

Ciao
Hannes

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email