Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Fri, 21 March 2014 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 2B7211A085D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ITk-IRXaERuN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EAB1A0864 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id t61so1195235wes.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MRZRbzri4W4odbYwo+ahvSswbJpAQCco8t5AOKOeXKo=; b=LJELBEkeifmxhPYJ3AVUO7WSEssnwAGkkGZh87fkQZP7dGNvUgIOLqkGEwoJphAQtD lAXlmbZagycNODc3Ijha6TKiGeLjNRlFpffgVraaY7Mf78iCygd2xAC2cEY162KlU4p5 58N607FYlN34m0O7UUI8zgIpatTmbBh6w2QjriG2o+uZD/Cw2905wqqJt5n0qIfdUC6p ffk0ssO3+LOdkanJixQOpsWd7OWTDAg/VeotEF5W+8TblA+E+P8DQKeXRhkjPC8dSoXQ xo4JbSsZxcQinlhOLNrhZESInLuoUGuAILwoZE6s48ATLYAvU5+Ni0ayA7lBs4AqfkNi 5TpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsqR+TivEV5XB51KLa7lUIiYfwMTZqJJ237wYd8TO5doRGH/tMfNW/Fawg5KH9T+apbCwe
X-Received: by 10.194.192.132 with SMTP id hg4mr37257089wjc.28.1395369579536; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm719763wix.10.2014.03.20.19.39.38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id x13so1212839wgg.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.202.230 with SMTP id kl6mr37563136wjc.9.1395369578402; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.49.137 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-2hMHJUGhKKocvu5Ld9_cr+duSbJ=+rEucUaAmjiooZTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-0Hw0NFs_avsB2Z8do21BCws2LRZSeSh6HP0t455SPXyw@mail.gmail.com> <B6836FFA-867A-4CBF-9855-D265425EC5E1@cisco.com> <CAOqqYVE=i2L7FxGgKuV0DVaaxYOPnxzSEbDoq0_4Tqapna575g@mail.gmail.com> <CD747481-EBDA-4FFC-A31D-618E6E217420@cisco.com> <5329B617.2070001@alvestrand.no> <17885A74-50A3-49E3-8C54-E53C55019C73@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-0Dx4Owam7NzXqs6ALPi+ps9gKbmFK9=Zu5eBr9yHYgKg@mail.gmail.com> <444DE75E-BF07-4C6F-91B1-CF57DC67FBA3@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMD5jG-w7ahHLsUX9QMSkSMArS4Wz7ZYOucAZWkrmz5YsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1JZG547KkiWeG=3zfCFk6WVzm+r9kF0MTg3SQynHMJdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvKJRMYGYDRNKvmdxmsc35B16P4-+73E+o85-re42yrzw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2hMHJUGhKKocvu5Ld9_cr+duSbJ=+rEucUaAmjiooZTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:39:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxv5xHknbsPCYpysvo7CeA7oKFu+Yy7QJbmVd6s1UyLr7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b873a100d1ad304f514cccf
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/wU_6TifoX02JNKn0ZkppAJPJi4A
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?
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: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:39:56 -0000

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>wrote;wrote:
>>
>>> Your take is what I had in mind. Basically a ruleset like this:
>>>
>>>  gather_ipv4_addresses();
>>>  if (has_ipv6) {
>>>   if (has_temporary_addresses && temporaries_not_forbidden_by_policy) {
>>>     gather_temporary_ipv6_addresses();
>>>   } else {
>>>     gather_non_temporary_ipv6_addresses();
>>>  }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>  What should be done when temporary enabled only on some of the network
>> interfaces of the device, i.e. if, for instance, WiFI interface has only
>> non temp ipv6 address and LTE has both temp and permanent address present?
>>
>>
> Is this a real-world problem? As I understand it, temporary addresses are
> assigned by the host, so you either support them or you don't.
>

On Linux you can enable temporary addresses per interface, so it is
possible.

The whole problem (with using temp or permanent addresses) is a bit
imaginary since under most common client setups you only see temporary
addresses. Permanent IPv6 addresses show up only on servers or if
specifically configured on the host.
_____________
Roman Shpount