Re: [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 26 July 2011 18:24 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 C8EF221F8696 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.156
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.416, BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SGRVHE6b-zoa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2971321F8686 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP93 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:24:24 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [130.129.19.47]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP934DFCD6525C99A879E5E893320@phx.gbl>
Received: from localhost ([130.129.19.47]) by BLU0-SMTP93.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:24:24 -0700
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:24:24 -0400
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, rtcweb@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2011 18:24:24.0303 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EE777F0:01CC4BC1]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases
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, 26 Jul 2011 18:24:25 -0000
This is indeed a real use case. Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote: >We have something in there with a NAT... but I don't think we have a use case that covers the situation where one or both users is behind a NAT or firewall that blocks UDP entirely (which fortunately also covers some of the NAT cases where ICE doesn't succeed). This would require media over TCP... something that I believe some of the implementations have already tackled in different ways, but there's no use case and no drafts proposing which solution to choose either. > >Matthew Kaufman >_______________________________________________ >rtcweb mailing list >rtcweb@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] NAT / firewall use cases Emil Ivov