IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 4B279130E34 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
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 autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CcXXow7WtBw3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F910130E25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id u18-v6so2592678vsu.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=s5i5t0vukJgUr7kRjXgT0PAR+4lUsn2I8CkIBAWgTtg=; b=rAxQ2uPVwZ2fx2y+yEGA3NIGTzLGfcKal2EBkWWUBGLJHvDC0w2OzFiUqmNR1rhwAo j7BOSYvmJq5KXYD3iz4khuuwiwIjYZBekvL/MLf87+n+/oQANL8H7Gi32SXiTRznfeCC U7dlOeYxrGaTyZoFyZhKHG9cgS30RjaCU3LTSPMNCDzPNH2VoR9htQPcIGYlgwHCrUX5 C6rwFJKi9eWYwhtOScM+ArNIPDL9pwrtjR1PUZnTdYzOl1u7t4TH1XOl95n9LSKv3CI3 tsjsXLy9KBlt7zco1PiuN7GKl7Au/PA+uE5sMFL/GJFKU+G7WWjewl6WPBUngAGCcxZx yqgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s5i5t0vukJgUr7kRjXgT0PAR+4lUsn2I8CkIBAWgTtg=; b=J+FnCZhahoKuJyuwrciXXnh/2hFM+Lva5+IUlCRmUqT5KRkfD26gCEih5NFwynCqPD 8yKMsLdmJovxe4WapgmlA1BiCAuDc+LKz3bwxaAIy/1fBeI2aUKPMshJvHtHHA7OntSR 4mCeI4Ps/1+Y5KLFh005i+ebdoHnO20cFLkOI9+fIACqCaZ7Ihk22UTn13+WYm0utnUS SH2jqyf9rpOk+iTtsMfJmN2hBZTXosd46E1codW6vdHinPu2d73Hc6AgReZpMVJK0zkd MkbUpwh4MKGxuJ6pAQyyxMyvvOQmYHLY1KtfF153aO1glewUqqgzkeRL+GGI3b8o22kz R4hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BvrSwmLcTsxvhguexYh/xpMKunib5szkIYKlhV6tET/Dpg0hFI oM1OVwxhmqAbM8vz2oN6o5XIzOLWd5QKafnycnlKIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdba68lE7kh0lI2gEp2qhCunP8TbXWnceTstnsmQVhHZSyEojv4CmNSBmw+rtQ+8Gzbv3QboynGKIgvnEi5VrDY=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:4e53:: with SMTP id c80-v6mr10412009vsb.32.1537424490175; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOW+2dtkNjzS0DkD37SD=POtC2Nd6Xe=upyjvVoyBnnMw7qwbQ@mail.gmail.com> <E33840DD-0E89-40C2-9CFF-E1A798007C7B@westhawk.co.uk> <84F2BA5D-3B55-4B75-A8BE-C36852BA251C@gmail.com> <CANN+akYPTyA2tQrPRAKGd=DV4f8DWCFQknMJ8OnywoTdyZtn_Q@mail.gmail.com> <4EB3E785-B014-470F-961C-CA63B051FD1E@westhawk.co.uk> <73F0A366-77DC-4EE5-A6B6-D2F7112D7912@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <73F0A366-77DC-4EE5-A6B6-D2F7112D7912@iii.ca>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:21:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtE-v5swu=6txkW8s556Yvc3UeU-V-C6=fHbWUYk8PQpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009b2192057647887c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/vO6iHgxsiWSj4ttb2HXMfO2fv84>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 20 Sep 2018 06:21:33 -0000

>From what I have seen, relaying of mDNS is rare in enterprise WiFi networks
because of the effect of multicast on overall throughput. Even if lower
rates (e.g. < 11 Mbps) are disallowed, the effect on available time slots
can be substantial, particularly with 802.11ac deployed and higher speeds
coming.

So we should assume that mDNS is link-local scope.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 18:15 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 1:09 PM, westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 1) Burning man video relay - There is often decent bandwidth across the
> playa on a segmented class B but
> terrible connectivity to the outside world. If you want to relay audio and
> video from an art performance you
>  _really_ want to keep the media  within the class B. MDNS won’t do the
> trick because of the segmentation.
>
> I imagine there are corporate networks that look like this too.
>
>
> I think the majority of large enterprise networks have weird and
> interesting forwarding and filtering of MDNS. Particularly over the the
> WiFI portion of the network. Be worth understanding the impact of that a
> bit.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email