Re: [tram] Extend dual allocation to multiple in TURNbis

I agree with Tiru that opening up turnbis for such a change at this 
stage is not the right approach. The WG has broad consensus already on 
the scope of turnbis, and multiple addresses of each family type is not 
part of that scope.

--Brandon

On 03/09/2018 07:35 AM, Karl Stahl wrote:
> Allowing a turn allocation to return multiple relayed transport addresses, beyond ONE IPv4 and ONE IPv6 (which may sit on the same or on different interfaces/network segments), seems like very small step now when the dual allocation was put in place in this draft. We certainly need it (some reasons below) if TURN is going to be used where needed and we cannot wait for any additional draft.
> 
> Seems like it is sufficient to extent this table (found in draft 14) with 3 new values (as shown):
> 
> 16.  STUN Attributes
> 
>     This STUN extension defines the following attributes:
> 
>       0x000C: CHANNEL-NUMBER
>       0x000D: LIFETIME
>       0x0010: Reserved (was BANDWIDTH)
>       0x0012: XOR-PEER-ADDRESS
>       0x0013: DATA
>       0x0016: XOR-RELAYED-ADDRESS
>       0x0017: REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY
>       0x0018: EVEN-PORT
>       0x0019: REQUESTED-TRANSPORT
>       0x001A: DONT-FRAGMENT
>       0x0021: Reserved (was TIMER-VAL)
>       0x0022: RESERVATION-TOKEN
>       TBD-CA: ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALL
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALLV4
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALLV6
>       TBD-CA: ADDRESS-ERROR-CODE
>       TBD-CA: ICMP
> 
> Actually, browsing through the draft for ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY, very little text seems to be added for generalization to  ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-xxx. Almost everything applies to ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-xxx and can be reused.
> 
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALL should be the default for any modern TURN client.
> 
> Check! - We need this now.
> 
> Thanks,
> Karl
> 
> 
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com]
> Skickat: den 5 mars 2018 11:47
> Till: Karl Stahl; 'Marc Petit-Huguenin'; tram@ietf.org
> Ämne: RE: [tram] Review of dual allocation in TURNbis-11
> 
> ...
> 
> WG has discussed and agreed only on dual allocation and your proposal to return multiple relayed transport addresses of the same family is new work and the need for this enhancement needs to be discussed and agreed in the WG.
> A new draft looks more suitable to discuss this enhancement.
> 
> -Tiru
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karl Stahl [mailto:karl.stahl@ingate.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 10:36 PM
>> To: 'Marc Petit-Huguenin' <petithug@acm.org>; Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; tram@ietf.org
>> Subject: SV: [tram] Review of dual allocation in TURNbis-11
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> When we now have "dual allocation" into this draft (I see on page 26: "If the
>> client wishes to obtain one IPv6 and one IPv4 relayed transport address then
>> it includes an ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY transport address then it") can
>> we not generalize that further and allow MORE THAN ONE relayed transport
>> address (of any family) in response to an allocation?
>>
>> I mean that a TURN server could have several relay interfaces at different IP-
>> addresses into different networks - not just the Internet, but also a VoIP
>> (higher quality) network e.g. by some triple play service provider, an IMS
>> network or some branch office network.
>>
>> I think this is specifically important for network provided/auto discovered
>> turn servers (application provided turn servers could instead just list several
>> turn servers).
>>
>> I saw someone snipped this about "SINGLE relayed transport address per
>> allocation request"
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6156#section-3
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>     TURN servers allocate a single relayed transport address per
>>>>     allocation request.  Therefore, Allocate requests cannot carry more
>>>>     than one REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY attribute.  Consequently, a
>> client
>>>>     that wishes to allocate more than one relayed transport address at a
>>>>     TURN server (e.g., an IPv4 and an IPv6 address) needs to perform
>>>>     several allocation requests (one allocation request per relayed
>>>>     transport address).
>>>> </snip>
>>
>> but if that is remedied now, it seems like a small step to generalize so we can
>> get multiple relayed transport addresses from one allocate request?
>>
>> /Karl
> 
> 
> 
> **** Left a few clips from "[tram] Review of dual allocation in TURNbis-11" thread
>>>
>>> If the server does not support dual allocation but supports both IPv6 and
>> IPv4 allocations, it will only allocate the IPv4 relayed address and not will not
>> return ADDRESS-ERROR-CODE in the response, the client will know the
>> server does not understand the ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY attribute
>> (ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY is a comprehension-optional attribute).
> 
> 
>>>> Using two different warnings permits to know if the second allocation
>>>> will succeed or not.
>>>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
> 