Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 BC2B61A039F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 dXpd5A3iSEN4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFFA1A03CA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e4so3711588wiv.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:04 -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=nIvOodgvL29Wx7YVxAQCTM9QytwrIMFTSdA5vsaDaI4=; b=p5CdHdiIYi+dstNWWgPX85klUAThAbpIs3l8bV1ojUa2U3z0kxUJVMfwYSnX3Q6g9R RaWjtcBz443fnszrnlNaNfLdA8qISUw2S6QS8LIHQP3l4tqn2B39NkZbioqz1S0ZYRIl NUnrHk884mqncL68diFLd4Ny/MMkIHOEc/VtWqSwrrbSWhZQ+rk8pPqOquRy9p3a9ABn yuN7v77p/L4BzYtYa1qQHJzPG4TBgfqTqh0Et/2Boh1txuk3q8tqw4wtwqj06FJXjtfx tBAUhNwFzeiZju8tO9rQrK8VmaR9oBj9WF9lx46FwG9irgAhvYSI4xjX267NTaZLt9En XnSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.188.229 with SMTP id gd5mr7245056wic.54.1392317404228; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.133.169 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52FD12E0.70205@matthew.at>
References: <CAD6AjGRiQ1UF5n3JG9HPRQFM+TD54Xz-dpTn5u9bX+__BMfesQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVbZp7yBvpY1ARuaBXS=TOipY=BhXzrd=h5DY-76oF9Pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSxS4jNRGotsE_no0XhewvDqcVZ+Kmx1aMW9qorqSKR+w@mail.gmail.com> <52FD12E0.70205@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:50:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGR5HcDi6LGvucZz6VdJk5s2jjhWky2amcDiTv4TEJW0AQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/qmNnT5RXXssaC61Us4k0y9SqA14
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:50:08 -0000

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> On 2/13/2014 9:56 AM, Cb B wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Martin Thomson
>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2014 22:06, Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For about a year now, i have been very concerned about IPv4 UDP.  It
>>>> has been increasingly associated with DDoS traffic [1],
>>>
>>> Is your concern that WebRTC will increase the potential for DoS (which
>>> would presume the DoS mitigation measures in ICE [RFC 5245] are
>>> insufficient), or is it just that UDP is so toxic to network operators
>>> that you predict it will be turned off?
>>
>> My concern is that IPv4 UDP is so toxic it will be blocked.  It may be
>> wise to start SCTP in the standard from the start.
>>
>
> Why SCTP? Why not "Just like UDP only restricted to having SRTP inside" or
> even "just like UDP only a different protocol number that we like better"?
>
> (Assuming that this is a good idea at all)
>

UDP2 using a different protocol number would be sufficient to
differentiate from the "bad" traffic.

Cameron

> Matthew Kaufman
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb