[182739] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UDP clamped on service provider links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Thu Jul 30 17:32:07 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMD9-F-89wisyo8CVXAanPU=gzRJ8fj2F0kE2v-3V55nBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:31:59 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:45 PM, John Kristoff <jtk@cymru.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:42:46 +0530
> > Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Is there a reason why this is often done so? Is this because UDP
> > > is stateless and any script kiddie could launch a DOS attack with a
> > > UDP stream?
> >
> > State, some form of sender verification and that it and most other
> > commonly used protocols besides TCP do not generally react to implicit
> > congestion signals (drops usually).
> >
> >
> =E2=80=8BHmmm. The WebRTC =E2=80=8Bstack has a pretty explicit form of g=
etting and then
> maintaining consent; it also rides on top of UDP (SRTP/UDP for media and
> SCTP/DTLS/UDP for data channels). Because both media and data channels g=
o
> from peer to peer, it has no preset group of server addresses to white li=
st
> (the only way I can see to do that would be to force the use of TURN and
> white list the TURN server, but that would be problematic for
> performance). How will you support it if the default is to throttle UDP?
>
> Clue welcome,
>
> Ted
>
We will install a middlebox to strip off the UDP and expose the SCTP
natively as the transport protocol !
Patent pending!
RTCweb made a series of trade offs. Encapsulating SCTP in UDP is one of
them... the idea at the time was the this is only WebRTC 1.0, so we'll do a
few silly things to ship it early. As i am sure you know :)
