IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Mon, 11 March 2013 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 68A8721F8FA4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 bGZUKNv0uEoR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D67521F8DC5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 155D81EB84BE; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:58:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.94]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:58:08 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOHoKpQPNB80XASUa1nEzDk7aFy5ig5ncw
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:58:08 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06895013@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <513E146D.4060009@alvestrand.no> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B3A9@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B3A9@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:58:20 -0000

On: 11 March 2013 14:03 Reinaldo Penno (repenno) Wrote:


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

It is not required for an ISP to deploy a TURN server the webrtc TURN server is much more likely to be deployed by the web application provider which will instruct the browser to use it when accessing its service.

> 
> 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.
> 

Understood but would need to understand what the benefits of doing so would be.

Regards
Andy

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status