Re: [tram] Allow TURN to forward inbound connectivity checks without permission

It does indeed.

I think in general this is worth looking into.

I also like the idea of simply forwarding all binding requests to the TURN client. Because 1) it does not expose the ufrag to the network when talking to the TURN server. And 2) it’s easier for the TURN server to just check for the STUN request type and hot have to parse for the ufrag attribute as well.

One question which comes to my mind is if the TURN server at some point, e.g. after receiving the permission request, stops forwarding the binding requests blindly?

Best
  Nils Ohlmeier

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:50, Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> The idea reminds me of the ufrag permissions draft that Justin and I put together a few years ago. It didn't generate much interest at the time, but maybe it's time to give it another look?
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-williams-tram-ufrag-permission-00
> 
> Not quite "forward without permission", but close.
> 
> In addition, some of the other parts of the new media stack deck (i.e. ICN and controller-based architecture) make me think of the discussions some of us have had about trying to allow TURN servers to act as a sort-of virtual mutlicast node.
> 
> --Brandon
> 
> On 03/19/2018 06:50 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> Tramsters,
>> $subject is an very interesting idea from EKR presented today by Cullen in DISPATCH. Could/should we do this in TURN-bis? This could make TURN *much* more attractive for certain use cases that require fewer round trips...
>> Simon
>> _______________________________________________
>> tram mailing list
>> tram@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

Re: [tram] Allow TURN to forward inbound connectivity checks without permission

Attachment: signature.asc