Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support

Gil Zino <gilzino@gmail.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <gilzino@gmail.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 CFCD91A01CA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:26:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qjUwOTv44t5b for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8E11A01E5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m5so1104342qaj.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:26:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dVdqtelS0zMN5nMWUnfhcsTVyYuLuDzXmp8SpIRh4gU=; b=hmr8TcyThf1jxnzhULRJoAT6/uO+AHaopK0y62AyshnW/8fGQbFrP0RuLb5UGl/Ahr Yve/825O73yB1WmDsmlxbKA6SgbhUA4nDaotxL+oMRrRQWFkZSsOgeL++UQxeqA2AUnv qsYwlar8LTSM1pOyQNI6tzzHvIDak/zmS7wgSbIRf1BCvpwvLrAOA7QGvp7krmF2b0PA C2XDHMeq2Gu/PssQAVXHvX0u4Gt5V6NFP5RRyZ7pDmFVPEss/RPV7OqK9wOf6k+PCudt m8/AAz4Y5m1gR2pOMD9Yt43ihCzLqE2HTJeGWLDv9ldHzruq/MGFb/0z0/SM+oixfMR3 pQ4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.161.140 with SMTP id r12mr7599130qax.24.1394033179170; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:26:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.28.200 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:26:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0-U8ycUYcOwRGxgZVDQmdPMXC4Qt7F+uAn29AGOepX7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-0-U8ycUYcOwRGxgZVDQmdPMXC4Qt7F+uAn29AGOepX7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:26:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CABAmMA00xA1TbXsQRYYnuukYyurZzdG8nKr95aT4gxHxQtNiMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gil Zino <gilzino@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0153742e735b8104f3dda419
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/o5WsAH8u6QQS1XmdbQ0i_iZEct0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:26:25 -0000

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
>
>