Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support

Agree on the cost concern.  Not sure I fully understand the context though.
 Is ~.09% the estimated percentage of times that TCP will be the only way
to get through UDP-blocking firewalls, or am I mis-understanding the use
case?

If it does refer to the UDP-blocking, what data is it based on?  I do know
large enterprise firewalls skew significantly higher on UDP blocking, but I
suspect SMB and residential perhaps are more UDP-permissive by default (but
have never seen extensive data that is not biased by the sampling).

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> From the transports draft, Section 3.4:
>
>    TURN TCP candidates [RFC6062 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6062>] SHOULD be supported; this allows
>    applications to achieve peer-to-peer communication when both parties
>    are behind UDP-blocking firewalls using a single TURN server.  (In
>    this case, one can also achieve communication using two TURN servers
>    that use TCP between the server and the client, and UDP between the
>    TURN servers.)
>
>
> I don't think we want to do this. The optimization of having a single vs two TURN servers in the .09% case is not worth the implementation or runtime cost of allocating TURN TCP candidates. It requires a TCP connection to the TURN server, which we would otherwise not do except in fallback cases.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>