Re: [rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 05 March 2014 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FCD1A022E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:21:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JV9U-UmA2jFJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589201A01E1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (h194.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.194]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 777114040A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:21:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <531740DD.5030700@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:21:01 +0000
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAOJ7v-3vukxXzUN5ttEnJ0dTu2YX=N7qdPDqzy8iXaRwMuH7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3vukxXzUN5ttEnJ0dTu2YX=N7qdPDqzy8iXaRwMuH7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bSUbnfh43hM2Q4hF6bxwA41vj8A
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:21:09 -0000

Le 2014-03-05 14:56, Justin Uberti a écrit :
> I think this needs clarification. Does this mean that we should allocate v6 candidates from all v4 interfaces (for compat with v6-only endpoints), as well as allocate v4 candidates from all v6 interfaces (for compat with v4-only endpoints), and if so, which path (v6-to-TURN or v6-from-TURN) should be prioritized?

You must always allocate both v4 and v6 relayed candidates, irrespective
of what other candidates you have.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca