Re: [rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6

"Parthasarathi R" <> Wed, 05 March 2014 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4991A0767 for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:28:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LnUj5wchnEA2 for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F5A1A01BF for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4387A6381EC; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:28:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120823; t=1394036925; bh=GO4uqPC7gJyKH1mot3416GcJO5xCbnJylKWNi8FzR9w=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZokHg8XllDmbYZRSBF7NgFUcDDFaEKuSqmXt3UgX4Y/gXoHItBWoHdMqnYbdSr8wr nxN9XEJKazLZvDtwNiDDbXFrjUDX5rHWJXjI8wm2dlHnAxMjEfPOTxBY3Dw7jji3dz VzYb4YKenCnEhnIPHO3OJSBBGFLCI0GFYMNbJxqk=
From: Parthasarathi R <>
To: 'Justin Uberti' <>, 'Simon Perreault' <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:58:33 +0530
Message-ID: <00c901cf388f$f8146a40$e83d3ec0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CA_01CF38BE.11CCA640"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac84h2JrncnsPVouSfiltl4zwbL+mQABk5tw
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.531750BD.009F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 05 Mar 2014 16:28:54 -0000

(TURN) relayed candidates MUST NOT be prioritized as it is always possible to other high priority candidates succeed for the WebRTC session. Also, TURN candidates is not required to be allocated for all the session. Hope trickle ICE solve these problems as the allocation shall happen.


IMO, it is very much possible to implement in the WebRTC network (server/endpoint) without TURN server and with reduced WebRTC session setup time.




From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:57 PM
To: Simon Perreault
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports questions on IPv6




On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Simon Perreault <> wrote:

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.


I am fine with that - this needs to be added to the transports document though.


Any thoughts on the prioritization question?