Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
... and would make sure that it does not pass NATs...
I guess this is the same problem as using SCTP/IP. For
NAT traversal through NATs not supporting SCTP one would
use SCTP/UDP/IP.

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