Re: [rtcweb] SRTP requirement - wiretapping (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Fri, 11 November 2011 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 E174E1F0C3D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:23:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 BOLRc1LyuNs2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:23:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC3C1F0C35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:23:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonusmail06.sonusnet.com (sonusmail06.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.156]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAB5Nbaw014033; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:23:37 -0500
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail06.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:20:38 -0500
Received: from INBA-HUB01.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.86]) by sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:50:45 +0530
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::5cbc:2823:f6cc:9ce7%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:50:44 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SRTP requirement - wiretapping (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
Thread-Index: AQHMnoiMLXoobGtfx0Kkx8oSZTnrRJWj1oYwgABiqoCAAVQz4P//q0QAgABeqYD//6mjAIABYdXw
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:20:44 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01CE7066@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <4EB9ACF5.80805@alvestrand.no> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349F60@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CAD6AjGTn2WPaVQh01y-PVYZtpVYKopocqzQBSEMQadozjEd-Tw@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FE6@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CABcZeBNvGVWgNiLcP9=n+hnfvV1P4_uF1+Q2oC6dwgya80BwGQ@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A6B5@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CABcZeBMoCOQVPYWmoLYkU1zvjMKu1Pr2MwYJ6GH1oocR+zmpvQ@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A6DF@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CABcZeBMhXnDTWeMV-Lju3TvnGsd+AJrMxj_nYkU+tr-KWWnBTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMhXnDTWeMV-Lju3TvnGsd+AJrMxj_nYkU+tr-KWWnBTw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.54.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2011 05:20:45.0698 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA3EB620:01CCA031]
Cc: "&lt,rtcweb@ietf.org&gt," <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP requirement - wiretapping (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
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: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:23:03 -0000

Eric,

10% performance impact due to (security) service is a impact on the system. In case of walled garden (Enterprise) network, there is no need to design the system which always requires of 10% performance w.r.t general purpose hardware and obvious choice is to come up with custom build hardware which reduces the cost of system and solution. But your proposal of "mandatory to implement" forces these kind of solution to increase the cost unnecessarily. So, I argue for "mandatory to implement" in browser but against "mandatory to use" which breaks these kind of deployment model.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:24 AM
>To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>Cc: Cameron Byrne; &lt,rtcweb@ietf.org&gtg&gt,
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP requirement - wiretapping (Re: Let's define
>the purpose of WebRTC)
>
>On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi
><pravindran@sonusnet.com> wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> Of course, the bandwidth requirement is range from 4MB/s to 16MB/s
>based on deployment but the point to be noted is that the device is not
>doing encryption/decryption alone.
>
>Of course not, but based on the data I just provided and these
>bandwidth estimates,
>encryption would consume on the order of 5-10% of a relatively modest
>machine.
>Again, do you have any actual measurements that show that crypto is a
>serious
>performance problem?
>
>-Ekr