Re: [tram] New Version Notification for draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01.txt

["Karl Stahl" <[e-mail]>]

> require a round-trip between...
- I wasn't concerned about round-trips, but rather possible time-outs when
there is nothing to find - I haven't really checked (concerned about that we
don't specify something slow creating a need to trickle or something)

Regarding multiple methods and TTL limitation, is the intention of this
draft that it may/could be used by rtcweb as:
"... webrtc browsers MUST use turn servers discovered by the anycast method
in draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01.txt with TTL limitation set to 3..." ?

/Karl


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: tram [mailto:[e-mail]] För Brandon Williams
Skickat: den 19 maj 2014 10:48
Till: [e-mail]
Ämne: Re: [tram] New Version Notification for
draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01.txt

I'm not sure how realistic it is to define a specific TTL limitation. 
That assumes a perhaps unrealistic degree of uniformity in both the local
network implementation and the ISP network implementation.

Regarding whether multiple methods should be in the spec, one other
important question to answer is whether all of the proposed methods have
identical security properties. There were some security limitations for
anycast (at least the well-known-address version) discussed on the list. 
These security limitations still need some discussion in the draft.

Regarding connect time, in what way is the anycast method faster than name
resolution? Under some conditions it may be faster, but typically it will
require an extra round-trip between the client and the anycast address just
as name resolution will require a round-trip between the client and the DNS
server.

--Brandon

On 05/18/2014 08:43 AM, Karl Stahl wrote:
> I browsed through this document and to me it looks mature enough to be 
> pushed forward (hopefully soon) to get an IANA anycast address etc., 
> so these things can be put into current WebRTC browsers. As we know, 
> many enterprises cannot use WebRTC at all today due to their 
> restrictive firewall policies - they need a TURN server on their LAN, 
> discovered and used by the WebRTC browsers to even begin using WebRTC.
>
> However, I raised a few questions and some suggestions 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00480.html
> at the end of the previous version of this draft that never became 
> discussed and remain:
>
> A) Under 8.2 there is a suggested way to assure that the TURN server 
> returned by the anycast method, is provided by the network provider 
> (and not some far away TURN server that should not be trusted to use 
> without authentication): "... can set an IP TTL on their TURN requests 
> that limits how far they can travel into the public Internet."
>
> I suggest that this TTL limitation is specified (e.g. Don't look 
> further than 3 steps - local firewall + max 2 ISP routers) and brought 
> into section "5. Discovery using Anycast" of the draft.
>
> B) Shall we really have more than one method? If the Anycast method 
> can be used by everyone, why then also have DHCP and now a two more
methods?
>
> I assume you intend that all webrtc browsers implement and can use all 
> methods? Or? (If a service provider e.g. deploys DHCP discovered TURN 
> servers, but some webrtc browser in some operating system don't 
> find/cannot use the TURN server, it would be bad.)
>
> In previous discussions, there were some fears that DHCP options are 
> not available in some common OSs. If so, I think the DHCP method 
> should be skipped.
>
> Also, if the other methods (other than anycast) may fail, why have them?
> Are they better to deploy and provision for network service providers?
>
> And will webrtc browsers implement all these methods?
>
> Do we have input/feedback on these questions?
>
> Should the "connect speed factor" not also be considered? Even though 
> the auto discovery can be done in advance of a call, we should 
> consider the mobility use case. With a mobile client changing network, 
> LAN/LTE/public WiFi etc., we want to get up and run as soon as 
> possible, so the auto discovery of a new TURN server should not be a 
> tedious process
>
> And should the quick anycast auto discovery not be the first to be 
> tried/used (which it is not now in the draft)?
>
> C) I noticed that referenced I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery
> is now RFC7216.
>
> /Karl
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: tram [mailto:[e-mail]] För Prashanth Patil 
> (praspati)
> Skickat: den 2 maj 2014 12:02
> Till: [e-mail]
> Ämne: [tram] FW: New Version Notification for 
> draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01.txt
>
> A new revision of the TURN server discovery draft has been published.
> Notable updates :
>
> * 300 (Try Alternate) response for anycast.
> * Mechanism described in draft-kist-alto-3pdisc i.e. using the clients 
> own address to populate the DNS reverse zone (i.e., in-addr.arpa or 
> ip6.arpa) with appropriate NAPTR records pointing to the TURN server.
> * Learning domain names from own identity.
>
> -Prashanth
>
>
> On 5/2/14 3:25 PM, "[e-mail]" 
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Prashanth Patil and posted to the 
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Name:		draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc
>> Revision:	01
>> Title:		TURN Server Auto Discovery
>> Document date:	2014-05-02
>> Group:		Individual Submission
>> Pages:		11
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-0
>> 1.txt
>> Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc/
>> Htmlized:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01
>> Diff:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    Current Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) server discovery
>>    mechanisms are relatively static and limited to explicit
>>    configuration.  These are usually under the administrative control of
>>    the application or TURN service provider, and not the enterprise or
>>    the ISP, the network in which the client is located.  Enterprises and
>>    ISPs wishing to provide their own TURN servers need auto discovery
>>    mechanisms that a TURN client could use with no or minimal
>>    configuration.  This document describes two such mechanisms for TURN
>>    server discovery.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>> tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>

--
Brandon Williams; Senior Principal Software Engineer Emerging Products
Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram