IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 06 July 2014 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 9EC4A1A01BE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 YjL1_P-htlmb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 06:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 989B91A01BA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 06:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id l18so568480wgh.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=jTXW9JWGTrdUq2vn85a2SaFgHYfy7XEX+/wDtQFwhRg=; b=lHYi3Spa2QBCCFIfN3W84xmjERISflk2jttWvNQGfusFKC4gfyZdIeye86t0M3dZQU QsiMwr/CpsGDdTxfAkzfzK2ci5V81rhaN4wkmY6l1iOkTwBxFt3dKnSQP/0dFztoBgWO lGpV5/CVt5QUIHhdD5stGUrzd2WYv0mfSOkILYRY8NMsfbSQQ4fGh6Yaw1lZXEdxfzgK AexLXgGSu+XVU+OkgBRWW2SW3rWJNpqy4BkDxUmfMRAQNWTu6RYu1rpmC3Gux6bWV40v UF5dcrIjox2AJPzHhNMFwrxQ2k2FoDSWpyuEoPsPvPGGlYTwjRI3QlF64g7StYlNMe85 A2Cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnQrOX8vAtGmcL3S9v1YhvWeGEJhQDnp1N6PeiiDS72dRiO7ZiY3sKqOKCx7Hvmmk42jsIs
X-Received: by 10.194.80.7 with SMTP id n7mr25173138wjx.8.1404652195041; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.57.202 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 06:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmjywprsFvsQg10S0nGw08XhuCAjDrqgx2=ZfV-T6_PVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegf=kLtiUKoue=ahXP4fUhLJNNd8vCaQTECQxjK5R7cjLTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxv8s5-FNR-kq0C01H_Ev39cyBs5P__Pd-0cmCXDFYy-YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPV_iVcSmi+ndDaYY6zX=F7TRoSDFqe5hzJP3-NjZ7Y1w@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=CMAOwVF3=gNY9qrsTfsEwuiwvGZ_1SaS0waOUE83-Ug@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMPyT4y1v12O5pb7Khs2ge0pgjUugrBS0NoK8=SLOScxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmjywprsFvsQg10S0nGw08XhuCAjDrqgx2=ZfV-T6_PVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:09:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM+ywkbXbE6=fz7Z9kmZkpsqW385kntoXW2RAR1eaWu1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7beb9c801e8cfa04fd8613c1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/l9TFqRXwkmBKfbwJft2PhOaFRyU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Question about ICE-Lite server
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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 13:09:57 -0000

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2014-07-06 14:08 GMT+02:00 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>:
> >> > Nice catch. That actually changes things, since Firefox always uses
> >> > aggressive nomination and for performance reasons, I'm not excited
> >> > about moving to regular nomination. This seems like an argument
> >> > for perhaps forbidding ICE-Lite.
> >>
> >> I don't understand, shouldn't that be fixed in Firefox?
> >
> >
> > That's one way to fix it. The other is to require that WebRTC peers do
> > full ICE. I'd be interested in hearing what Chrome does.
>
> I'm hope not. Implementing ICE-Lite in a server is trivial.
> Implementing full ICE is an overhead in a server. Please not. It is
> Firefox which must adhere to the standard and use regular nomination
> when the peer is ICE-Lite.


Well, we're currently discussing what the standards should say.
If we decide that counterparties to WebRTC do full ICE (just like
we've required them to do a bunch of other stuff) then it will be
the other side which needs to adjust.

-Ekr



> >> This is not
> >> about performance but about real issues in scenarios with IPv4 and
> >> IPv6 in which Firefox talks to an ICE Lite peer.
> >>
> >> Should I address an issue? or is it already known?
> >
> >
> > Feel free to file an issue.
>
> I will. Thanks a lot.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email