Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Simon Perreault <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Le 2014-03-20 10:54, Dan Wing a écrit :
> >
> > On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Simon Perreault <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 2014-03-19 03:02, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
> >>> I'd like to be silent on the issue, since which IPv6 addresses to
> prefer
> >>> is likely to be a matter of system policy. Trying to override system
> >>> policy in an application specific profile usually leads to sadness.
> >>
> >> What would be useful to mention IMHO is that ICE restart should be used
> >> to gracefully handle the issue of IP address expiry, of which temporary
> >> IPv6 addresses are a frequently-encountered example.
> >
> > When a temporary address expires, existing sockets bound that address
> should continue working with that expired address -- have you found
> otherwise on any OS, such that we would need ICE Mobility for temporary
> address expiration?
>
> When the address is removed from the interface, it doesn't matter if the
> socket is still "good" or not. The address is no longer on the interface
> so you will not receive packets sent to that address.
>
> I'm looking at the Linux and OpenBSD IPv6 stacks right now and neither
> seems to care about existing sockets before expiring an address. Haven't
> tried it though.
>
>
On Mac, the temporary addresses seem to change every day, but any existing
addresses seem to remain valid for a week.