Re: [tram] TURN server discovery (please discuss!)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 24 March 2014 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672D21A0227 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 qxt8ijGlWMIy for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685EA1A0297 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b13so3654190wgh.29 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Mf+dD15xuxwB4qo9SY+Hk5R8JirdmmRYgInOxP2tru0=; b=hMgegx72Y3BSipMxER/bFh84sRPcteG29MzP/3iXIqCmbtdcy5DZ2/j/8PswoelQl8 bPz8ptvd716/uz9EJifUaHStBmE5fgWCoDfSr5TDllb6TdyKIXmmOhDd3RQhyWnLjnSa dz72bLd1j7v06dou/tJvD2J35nnIgE+OxX8nMNHtlvI4d2GImV0iSqoCDY/rlC+7His0 kgLAPn7O9RwixDW272xxK3TTAqbUnsknuhDnmDbzdQvfl0GQI1MBBPZUWKSHQRf6fp90 SBg0KZTyAFB7WmUgt9j1VcT5qqwLCCz37mFH1LAVd+eBepTutzzeVg+5N15/yShdYtL3 OE3A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.106.134 with SMTP id gu6mr16949682wib.61.1395680337914; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.147.10 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <532AF25B.4020301@viagenie.ca>
References: <532AF25B.4020301@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:58:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUQ9dWmmiG1BOGBFJFzCMtcmCMu6qTaNonZ2eHN_twAgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/BgPRwwE0s4ejCxLwdsetJHePYG8
Cc: "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] TURN server discovery (please discuss!)
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:59:03 -0000

Re: WPAD:  This is causing HTTPBIS considerable pain.  If you feel
particularly masochistic, or desperate, then perhaps it can be
remembered, but any attempt to use WPAD will be sorely regretted.

On 20 March 2014 06:51, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
> Martin Stiemerling proposed that we look at draft-kist-alto-3pdisc for
> inspiration. As I understand it, that solution relies on the client's IP
> address "owner" (e.g. the ISP or enterprise) to populate the DNS reverse
> zone (i.e., in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa) with appropriate NAPTR records
> pointing to the network-provided TURN server. Can this work? This is a
> new idea for which I have not seen any discussion yet.

ALTO have been covering a lot of the same ground as GEOPRIV.
draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery sits in the RFC editor's
queue.  It's the same mechanism.

That said, this is only useful to the extent that the owner of the
network you are using is also the one providing the TURN service.  Is
this the operating assumption here?  Or are there other avenues that
need to be explored?