Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 13 February 2014 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 AEFBA1A0474 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:48:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 hIBo87Hqjx-f for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACAD1A0478 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B8F7C4CCD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:48:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JoPa0XMHevPL for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:48:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.19.7.138] (unknown [216.239.45.74]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B23DD7C4CCC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:48:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52FD2FA4.8040701@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:48:36 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAD6AjGRiQ1UF5n3JG9HPRQFM+TD54Xz-dpTn5u9bX+__BMfesQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVbZp7yBvpY1ARuaBXS=TOipY=BhXzrd=h5DY-76oF9Pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSxS4jNRGotsE_no0XhewvDqcVZ+Kmx1aMW9qorqSKR+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSxS4jNRGotsE_no0XhewvDqcVZ+Kmx1aMW9qorqSKR+w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/jF5es6L0p2Q7O1MXtRkCH6WHzzU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:48:49 -0000

On 02/13/2014 06:56 PM, Cb B wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Martin Thomson
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 February 2014 22:06, Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For about a year now, i have been very concerned about IPv4 UDP.  It
>>> has been increasingly associated with DDoS traffic [1],
>> Is your concern that WebRTC will increase the potential for DoS (which
>> would presume the DoS mitigation measures in ICE [RFC 5245] are
>> insufficient), or is it just that UDP is so toxic to network operators
>> that you predict it will be turned off?
> My concern is that IPv4 UDP is so toxic it will be blocked.  It may be
> wise to start SCTP in the standard from the start.

The bad guys will follow wherever the ports are open (and are usually
faster at writing code than the standards guys are at writing specs); so
will the traversal artists.

WebRTC over port 53, anyone?

(DNS is the one UDP-based service that's so important to the Internet,
it *cannot* be turned off unconditionally - so I expect that if UDP in
general gets blocked, port 53 will be the port 80 of UDP-land.)

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.