Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

On 11.07.14, 20:55, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Well, it should either be MUST ignore, or MUST fail. I can go either
> way, I just want deterministic API behavior.

I'd completely agree with MUST fail.

> On Jul 11, 2014 1:44 PM, "Emil Ivov" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 11.07.14, 18:07, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>         The fact that WebRTC implementations MUST ignore the address and
>         port in
>         the c=/m= lines will be written into JSEP, S 5.6/5.7.
>
>
>     MUST sounds unnecessarily strong here. Imagine Alice's WebRTC client
>     sends offer:
>
>             ...
>             c=IN IP4 *192.168.0.1*
>             t=0 0
>             a=ice-pwd:__asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
>             a=ice-ufrag:8hhY
>             a=ice-options:trickle
>             m=audio 5000 RTP/AVP 0
>             a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 *192.168.0.1* 5000 typ host
>             ...
>
>     and then Bob's browser gets
>
>             ...
>             c=IN IP4 *87.65.43.21*
>             t=0 0
>             a=ice-pwd:__asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
>             a=ice-ufrag:8hhY
>             a=ice-options:trickle
>             m=audio 2626 RTP/AVP 0
>             a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 *192.168.0.1* 5000 typ host
>             ...
>
>     Don't you think Bob's browser has a pretty good reason to reject the
>     offer because chances are the call would fail anyway?
>
>     Emil
>
>
>         On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>
>              On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Roman Shpount
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>              <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>               > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Emil Ivov
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>              <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>               >>
>               >> On 07.07.14, 21:48, Roman Shpount wrote:
>               >>>
>               >>> Is it possible to run into ICE-Mismatch with WebRTC?
>         Should we
>              specify
>               >>> that default candidate (c= and m= line based
>         candidate) should be
>               >>> ignored and thus mismatch check should not be performed?
>               >>
>               >>
>               >> I guess running into an ICE mismatch with WebRTC is just as
>              possible as
>               >> with any other ICE implementation. I suppose the only
>         difference
>              would be
>               >> that rather than falling back to 3264 semantics, WebRTC
>              implementations will
>               >> rather drop the session because without ICE, they
>         wouldn't be
>              able to do
>               >> consent checks for it.
>               >>
>               >
>               > My point was that WebRTC would never use 3264 semantics
>
>              Indeed. This was also my point.
>
>               > and use address from
>               > c= and m= lines for any purpose, so why does it need to
>         check
>              that this
>               > address is correct? Would it be more sensible just ignore
>              whatever value
>               > happen to be there?
>
>              With the exception of trickle ICE's use of :: (or 0.0.0.0)
>         an ICE
>              mismatch indicates that there is an entity on the
>         signalling path that
>              is overwriting c= line addresses and m= line ports. The idea of
>              dropping ICE here is that the infrastructure is likely
>         performing
>              Hosted NAT Traversal and latching so insisting on ICE is
>         likely to
>              lead to unexpected situations.
>
>               > Or, better yet end point can generate an error instead
>               > of generating a response with ice-mismatch.
>
>              Agreed. Sending an answer with ice-mismatch means
>         downgrading to basic
>              3264 and that doesn't make sense for WebRTC.
>
>              Agreed.
>
>              Emil
>
>              --
>         https://jitsi.org
>
>              _________________________________________________
>              rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/rtcweb
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>
>
>
>     --
>     https://jitsi.org
>

-- 
https://jitsi.org