IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Mon, 11 March 2013 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@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 2215221F8EE6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 Eixy9GB4FAdw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD4121F8EA7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=978; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363031562; x=1364241162; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/LlLnqC4IeNvcZfH5Y7hvpqjtiNSZY615lCS3bg5y8c=; b=cAUc01QRCsoKME2CbI8wmEXQyCJ+PczBBkg9LQf//IuOC3snB19RUGUC RpyXNeI0qXYBoN2VNGpzWVV0oNA27D6Ge+8e8yON8Rg3rQKUBUTF9JhJ7 0BOER0EUTUgTfxXd5bA8ZBM2Ioz3Im19E5e0Otm1WmUmzZK7GrsxEbgxo 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAFg1PlGtJXG//2dsb2JhbABDxGaBXxZ0gikBAQEEOj8SAQgYChRCHAkCBA4FCId5Aw+/U4xGghcxB4JfYQOnSoFUgTaCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,825,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="186028050"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2013 19:52:42 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2BJqfxK007394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:52:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:52:41 -0500
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOHoKpVPM3WtZH0EiYxevcVicwOpihNayA//+PwQA=
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:52:41 +0000
Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901B656@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <32A40EF5-E012-49CF-AC73-6F354700B900@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
x-originating-ip: [10.21.116.59]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <DD0F0A2FBE2FD6438F3B456242F8C811@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 19:52:43 -0000

On 3/11/13 12:34 PM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

>
>On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote:
>
>>>> Why not use Port Control Protocol (PCP) to control Firewalls and NATs
>>>> explicitly?
>>> We can switch to that as soon as 100% of firewalls support it - until
>>> then, we have to be able to rely on other techniques.
>> 
>> I'm sure STUN and TURN servers are not universally deployed ('100%') in
>> ISP networks either.
>
>STUN and TURN don't require any support from ISPs.

If ISPs want to provide RTCweb like services don't they need STUN and TURN
Servers so that ICE can gather candidates?

>Both protocols are used today.

Yes, today. But that did not stop design decisions to include these
protocols in ICE at a they time were not deployed at all.

> 
>Your co-worker Jonathan Rosenberg worked on these mechanisms and Cisco
>also supports them ;-)

Certainly. 

>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email