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

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@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 0A1621ACD00 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:58:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 MC50xPBr40Lp for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748A91A0459 for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id fa1so3655191pad.41 for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
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=Qhd7atk9ghjWIkniqq6E6kBSoXswGYH7DMWNKVeJ/Gw=; b=uvZUJdLjwFkzOoWTril1weWTTNFjvlJLN+YBZAWZa3QaMjkv6ekxrx2FhE0qEB1Srl 3x1odk9FEW3GoLJnGKna2XPcu/B9XeESGoUwRT/O0b5g5vU7dzVPT8Gkv8eeSsIwYnDr nymEtcrCcwV7LGy/6ow/+mBZuQzMA/7G3OFIUOPaqTMmMmfFy2gao9oDsEVWD7P7OOtG QnEcRXZtXp1EbRsdmB8KEti9MAeyVxfXsZ7tAkWVqfhmffceqCEhpOEkS6nbBi8tIsaK /mytpFkY93YD0bnAAslIlEHyflMM2nzNifkC3yy5LOQVZRFpXyMuEm0Dc6r1dO+CclaN etTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.67.14.231 with SMTP id fj7mr10151139pad.115.1391806728427; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.147.131 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52F53C98.1070202@viagenie.ca>
References: <16037E0F-62BC-484C-87C0-0C4190ED4D66@vidyo.com> <52F53C98.1070202@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:58:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CALDtMr+qgdnT5i4fiJidufGZF1CPR=puAZ+Ldqnp5t=At0AS-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113453eca4dc6e04f1d74105"
Cc: "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
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 20:58:50 -0000

Still we want a default behavior when a client (legacy ?) does not send
REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY (which is IPv4). I do not see any good reason to
introduce a backward incompatibility for the legacy clients unless there is
a good really important security reasons. I do not see any security problem
with the default behavior.


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Simon Perreault <
simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>