Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)

Paul Giralt <> Wed, 13 November 2013 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B1611E8107 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:54:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w3VWrlWTp7vt for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9253121E8096 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:54:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2303; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384372462; x=1385582062; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=tRI2YMOruRZb015KkbJgEZl0nHVqFRhFTrKQymMrlhY=; b=Ask4h6CXQHCOhtOuppkriXFH0AoC5vfGm2oiR3sIka/UNmW7UqnARQx0 2qpWzY+58qsRA9DiLQYnwHqg95wPuBO+lvKv8eE3mE8ZNcDaRzdcQCUS5 2xNNQCz2THG8RDvEJMvDjYMivNeLtWCv7JdfTY2d2WKFCOuXPStOm6RDQ o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFADXYg1KtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgwfAN4EoFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULC0ZXGYd7BsBBj18HFoMKgREDiUKGbodgkguBaoFcHg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,693,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="284434002"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2013 19:54:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rADJsIOD018731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:54:19 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A4F82AC-8FF5-4E58-8ED0-888B5DDBF19F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1812\))
From: Paul Giralt <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:54:17 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:54:27 -0000

On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:43 PM, <> <> wrote:

> Typically gateways and conf server endpoints would be reachable by TCP. The question is thus how often a  "normal" (browser or mobile app) endpoint would be in a network where UDP is blocked but direct outgoing TCP connections are allowed. In that case ICE-TCP would be optimal way for that endpoint to connect with a gateway/server endpoint. TURN over TCP would solve the same case but is less optimal.
> So unless people have data that shows that "UDP blocked but direct TCP allowed" is in itself a very rare setup (this is a question, I don't know that either), I think ICE-TCP is definitely worthwhile for a WebRTC endpoint to support. 

This is actually a very common firewall configuration for enterprise customers. Outbound TCP is allowed but UDP is blocked (even if UDP is initiated from the inside).