IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] [tram] TURN permissions for private ips

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
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 802DB1ACD53 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 lhRnlTFK3yOo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f43.google.com (mail-qg0-f43.google.com [209.85.192.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 451411ACD4B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgj62 with SMTP id 62so15459406qgj.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=m6ICfA/Dg3+j0wFcJY1BXxun9op/L4HqpmawJFHKsa4=; b=VJVY6xsdE9US2CvZiSdzPc1xnGVIgpwQD1FSxyRBOIpi3bLrm8TFvUE22fTrmid9+7 O09Wf808QLseHRxDuqpAe494ZfhTlC/BkqpoSENNg+BlybK+zJRn32ArOTWMlcbXD/sB n2rMml7NAYn3tvt9EJZcSwT4i4YFq/+oakI9/cSgRdDLclC0XnlPOEji6YjgNgCTvF5H zpguvbBmziWFLVobWDgNBoiMaWjOy0SV3KDgHCpxwBjUh5gJZ4yKbeFaFFPCvFUKb0Gq 7MZsAh/VCxQCU1oFyN55bIjS4oKfkeDGnhoZ+dVbl7MZXJuE3G6m51EQKEv+7om/hqRH I3JQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk4eKKcHeerBmhkXh4zXp6oRiudARepPL53EHrBLOLA0wMMDb2sDJChQ2hprH2a/V37HIuv
X-Received: by 10.140.145.16 with SMTP id 16mr9823082qhr.34.1438812070515; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Simons-MacBook-Air.local ([2607:fa48:6eca:f820:8866:e37:fd1c:e865]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 71sm2094225qhg.37.2015.08.05.15.01.09 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55C287A4.8050600@jive.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 18:01:08 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <20150805130607.20844.70680.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABcZeBMWVU9a1_e_47qddA04WhXG55QYzFA=dTrYgi+DuLQhKA@mail.gmail.com> <55C24293.5000603@cs.tcd.ie> <55C24C09.8020404@goodadvice.pages.de> <55C256C8.80606@jive.com> <CAOJ7v-3hyFhHiFq4eujLznXtehkUSxZati8YZ23o-RPLH=J5zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3hyFhHiFq4eujLznXtehkUSxZati8YZ23o-RPLH=J5zg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bxfZt26EQdIdJjGQR6FvuJpSTOY>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [tram] TURN permissions for private ips
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 Aug 2015 22:01:12 -0000

Le 2015-08-05 17:35, Justin Uberti a écrit :
> I am somewhat sympathetic to that, but given that there is measurable
> downside here - extra candidate pairs that take time to check - can you
> supply a concrete example of where the client choosing not to pair a
> TURN candidate with a RFC1918 address would cause a problem?

I can't!

Philipp's proposal certainly does make practical sense when you consider
it as an ugly optimization hack rather than something that is necessary
to make things work. Phrase it so that this is clear and I'll be all for
it. :)

Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email