Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/2013 06:38 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2013-11-13 11:33, Ravindran, Parthasarathi (NSN - IN/Bangalore) a
> écrit :
>> In case of Browser - GW/Server use cases (Sec 3.4 of
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12), the end-to-end TCP
>> connection is between browser & Gateway directly. Here, GW/server
>> acts as RTP endpoint/mixer in the middle of the network and acts as
>> "RTP relay" [Note 1] to the actual remote endpoint. TURN server (TCP
>> to UDP relay) is becoming "second middle box" in case GW/server
>> provider has to deploy TURN server as well. ICE-TCP solves the issue
>> as it creates the host candidates from GW/Server.
>
> All this relies on the possibility that a TCP peer-to-peer connection
> could be successfully established where a UDP one couldn't. IMHO this
> is very unlikely to happen in practice. So unlikely in fact that any
> possible gain over just falling back on a TURN relay wouldn't be worth
> the additional implementation cost.

Simon, do you have any numbers on that - how many calls will be going to
servers on the Internet versus how many calls will be going peer-to-peer?
The argument being given only applies to the client-to-gateway usecase
(or to naked destination clients that are not behind a NAT, which
hopefully will become common once IPv6 gets deployed, but aren't common
now).

>
> Simon


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.