Re: [rtcweb] rtcweb-transports reference to TRAM discovery

🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 3B2981A8722 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:17:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 TTjcTH1yi5YZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:17:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB0F1A1B99 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:17:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12846; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418757422; x=1419967022; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=Q3HCT+f0ZtquBZAGPfjwbBJd/+VEtUre+90OSVEsNzI=; b=FQlCSV4IJ2x3hYhGt//zsiPoWDTM0x9utk20nDGFjPnWFcdEt72cbQlA x+1zCDbtnmrYmqqugdUE478II9FV+qO6Ai+A6Mgva1Uys6kJ05jNN4VeQ f3+fB91xwvdv8/3OIn/n7goWqYH7JE0xm0iew0DTRSa3H5xvIVCILXVqh 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmwFAMCEkFStJA2I/2dsb2JhbABagkNDUliDBsJoAQmFKEoCgRwWAQEBAQF9hAwBAQEDAQEBASBLCwULCQIOAwQBAQEnAwICJx8JCAYTiCQIDaIFnGiWKwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEj24EBgGCaC6BEwWEJgKFFo0zhXmLQCKEDR0wgkMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,588,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="380753801"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2014 19:16:53 +0000
Received: from [10.24.103.149] ([10.24.103.149]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBGJGpi6019077 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:16:52 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4658D63F-FC96-45FC-BAE5-9F3C37BB5AFF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3xxVa05kA0SYVYQO324AwLWGUo8f_u534fN_-De0AV4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:16:55 -0800
Message-Id: <DA5613E8-DAAB-41DC-9A16-4C3D567A607B@cisco.com>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E63FB08@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CABcZeBOpX0vM9NJeKY5e+S13oKrLW3Td53qcxRkCHa2=nv=EGg@mail.gmail.com> <CANO7kWBY1MTU1A2fWo0E5Y6TQ1o+vWSz22pnWz6+5s7SFQcP-g@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E63FD67@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <FAA9B38F-1AB8-4E2C-AB02-2525402B4890@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-3xxVa05kA0SYVYQO324AwLWGUo8f_u534fN_-De0AV4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/h4ZITbak_nqU_ymSJzIRI6zuIWM
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] rtcweb-transports reference to TRAM discovery
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: <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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:17:04 -0000

On Dec 16, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Given that TURN servers can be used for STUN, is there a need to autodiscover STUN-only servers?

I am not aware of spec encouraging such implementations, and I don't know if everyone implementing WebRTC clients is going to be aware that TURN servers can provide useful information about the mapped IP address.  Perhaps it just needs a few sentences in an appropriate spec?

-d


> 
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM, 🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
> 
>> +1 Also wondering why it is not appropriate?
>>  
>> F20 in the requirements draft states:
>>  
>> F20     The browser must support the use of STUN and TURN
>>            servers that are supplied by entities other than
>>            the web application (i.e. the network provider).
>>  
>> So I was thinking the need for specifying the discovery method would not be controversial.
> 
> Note that draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery only discovers TURN servers.  If we need to discover STUN servers, too -- and I think we do -- we need that document to expand its scope or a second document.
> 
> I recently attended a talk where Matt Peterson presented Burning Man's network.  That network assigns RFC6598 addresses to each Burning Man "camp", and their ISP provides CGN'd addresses to Burning Man.  Each camp operates its own WiFi network, and we can all reasonably assume they are using typical consumer or SMB NAPT devices for those networks (e.g., D-Link, Linksys, Ubiquity, etc.).  To avoid tromboning camp-to-camp WebRTC traffic to their ISP's CGN, they would benefit from a STUN and a TURN server within the Burning Man network.  His presentation can be found at https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/agenda (PDF and video).
> 
> -d
> 
> 
>>  
>> Andy
>>  
>>  
>> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:sperreault@jive.com] 
>> Sent: 15 December 2014 15:49
>> To: Eric Rescorla
>> Cc: Hutton, Andrew; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] rtcweb-transports reference to TRAM discovery
>>  
>>  
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> I do not believe that this is an appropriate requirement
>> 
>> Care to say why?
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>