IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Giralt <pgiralt@cisco.com> Wed, 13 November 2013 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pgiralt@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B1611E8107 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:54:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w3VWrlWTp7vt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9253121E8096 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:54:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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 rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2013 19:54:20 +0000
Received: from pgiralt-macpro.cisco.com (pgiralt-macpro.cisco.com [10.81.96.60]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (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 <pgiralt@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A115B66@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:54:17 -0500
Message-Id: <EC27E18D-9B08-4802-872B-572E866DBF24@cisco.com>
References: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A115B66@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usefulness of ICE-TCP (Was: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 13 Nov 2013 19:54:27 -0000

On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:43 PM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> 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). 

-Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email