Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt

Hello,

On 3/11/13 10:29 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

>On 03/11/2013 06:04 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Why not use Port Control Protocol (PCP) to control Firewalls and NATs
>> explicitly?
>We can switch to that as soon as 100% of firewalls support it - until
>then, we have to be able to rely on other techniques.

I'm sure STUN and TURN servers are not universally deployed ('100%') in
ISP networks either.

But I'm not proposing dropping STUN/TURN in lieu of PCP, but using PCP as
an additional technique. Maybe you misunderstood what I was proposing.

>
>That's the deployment problem in a nutshell... I don't understand how
>the first firewall gets an advantage from having PCP, given that none of
>the apps support it, and I don't understand how the first app gets an
>advantage from having PCP, given that no firewalls support it.
>
>If PCP succeeds despite my misgivings, we can certainly revisit the issue.

I believe it should be considered as a viable option now since it is a
specific protocol to control NATs/Firewalls and Flow-aware devices
required Pv6 CPE requirements document, Broadband Forum and 3GPP specs.

>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On 3/11/13 9:56 AM, "Hutton, Andrew"
>> <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI - We submitted this draft today it relates to the requirements in
>>>the
>>> use case draft for rtcweb to work in the presence of firewalls and http
>>> proxies etc.
>>>
>>> Look forward to feedback and hope that this can be considered for
>>> adoption by the working group.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>> Sent: 11 March 2013 06:01
>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>> Subject: I-D Action:
>>> draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Title           : RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and HTTP
>>> proxies
>>> 	Author(s)       : Thomas Stach
>>>                           Andrew Hutton
>>>                           Justin Uberti
>>> 	Filename        :
>>>draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 8
>>> 	Date            : 2013-03-11
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    This document describes mechanism to enable media stream
>>>    establishment in the presence of NATs, firewalls and HTTP proxies.
>>>    HTTP proxy and firewall policies applied in many private network
>>>    domains introduce obstacles to the successful establishment of media
>>>    stream via RTCWEB.  This document examines some of these policies
>>>and
>>>    develops requirements on the web browsers designed to provide the
>>>    best possible chance of media connectivity between RTCWEB peers.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> 
>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-consid
>>>er
>>> ations
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> 
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-consideratio
>>>ns
>>> -00
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb