Re: [tram] Points that should be clarified in STUN-bis and TURN-bis

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Fri, 07 February 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 97E9E1AD190 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:05:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, 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 bWuSnJfpr9q4 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD01B1AC7F0 for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65C0140234 for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:05:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52F53C98.1070202@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:05:44 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tram@ietf.org
References: <16037E0F-62BC-484C-87C0-0C4190ED4D66@vidyo.com>
In-Reply-To: <16037E0F-62BC-484C-87C0-0C4190ED4D66@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [tram] Points that should be clarified in STUN-bis and TURN-bis
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:05:46 -0000

Jonathan,

This is great input, thanks! Let's see if we can file issues in our Trac
project so that we don't forget...

A quick remark about this item:

Le 2014-02-07 14:39, Jonathan Lennox a écrit :
> 2. What behavior is expected if a TURN ALLOCATE request does not
> contain a REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY (RFC 6156) attribute?  Is the
> server expected to allocate an IPv4 address (since RFC 5766
> explicitly says it only discusses IPv4 addresses), or is it at the
> server's discretion?

Answer: It must create an IPv4 allocation.

Remark: In TURN bis I would want clients to *always* send
REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY. That does not necessarily imply merging TURN
with TURN-IPv6, but it's an option I would consider.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca