IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 27 August 2013 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 2A79811E839A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 yWahaoah69nn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE3D11E839D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1082; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377620836; x=1378830436; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=D6hxYdCAV141oLQ0c5qLpad1wz2CHdtou/0xmfIcmWc=; b=aItLgL6EGcJuzvZBZNO7hfDxExMSCovSwRMyKK5r9w7yMB+KjAhNweII XzpvaJ6Q6zBB21RoKPbeSHGj4qA66glL4lGODtszW+tXgNxQWi8iW9h5g M4OGzSwil4RRRLGHGblGOeHqu1LQ869Yu6e9kHU6M3B/rIWadp5VVakrr E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEGAPfRHFKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgwc1UcAjgSMWbQeCJAEBAQMBeQULAgEIIiQyJQIEDgUIh3MGDLhkjzECMQeDHH0DmRyQM4FjgT2CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,968,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="252223729"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2013 16:27:15 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7RGRFWj014735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:27:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.15]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:27:15 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "markus.isomaki@nokia.com" <markus.isomaki@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHOo0JJE2R/GMAVEk6LFW+cPd2cDQ==
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:27:14 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB116648FE2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0906A4@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0906A4@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <681E4D32E7ADE447ADBF0B3F221C5731@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-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: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:27:31 -0000

On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:53 AM, markus.isomaki@nokia.com wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> I would support the adoption of the NAT and Firewall considerations (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01) as a WG document. Or to be more precise, I very much agree with the requirements summarized in Section 5. Especially this one seems important to me:
>  
> o  connect to a TURN server via a HTTP proxy using the HTTP connect
>       method,
>  
> If we want WebRTC to work from many corporate networks I’m aware of, it would not be possible without this as a fallback capability.
>  
> Markus
>  
>  

Have you tried if this work with your corporate firewalls? We are trying to get more information about that and info about if the TURN server needs to run on the TURN port or port 443. 

Thanks, Cullen with my co chair hat on. PS - Real Soon Now we are going to ask people to move this diction to a separate list so that others can follow it without having to wade through all the rtcweb traffic.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email