- From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:13:54 -0400
- To: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "ekr@rtfm.com" <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Message-ID: <CAD5OKxub8v9FdGhHvi-0eMbF1hhU524SSnJiXsGx=0QLyQ=gVw@mail.gmail.com>
"none" would mean local candidates only, "relay" means relay candidates only, and "all" means all candidates. Connectivity checks for all generated and received candidates should always be sent and replied to. _____________ Roman Shpount On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com> wrote: > Thanks for pointing that out.**** > > ** ** > > The webrtc draft [1] has this statement:**** > > ** ** > > IceTransports **** > > This is a enum type constraint that can take the values "none", "relay", > and "all". The default is a non mandatory "all". **** > > This constraints indicates which candidates the ICE engine is restricted > use. The value "none" means the ICE engine *must* not send or receive any > packets at this point. The value "relay" indicates the ICE engine *must*only using media relay candidates such as candidates passing through a TURN > server. This can be used to reduce leakage of IP addresses in certain use > cases. The value of "all" indicates all values can be used. **** > > So if an application creates a PeerConnection and calls updateIce() with > IceTransport=”none”, would it effectively disable the ICE Agent by > excluding all its candidates? **** > > ** ** > > Thanks.**** > > Li**** > > ** ** > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Roman Shpount [mailto:roman@telurix.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2012 12:44 PM > *To:* Li Li > *Cc:* public-webrtc@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Feedback on the PeerConnection API**** > > ** ** > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com> wrote:**** > > > I agree, a way to not use any STUN or TURN server should be specified.* > *** > > **** > > You should be able to just not provide servers.**** > > **** > > I think we need to distinguish two cases even without any STUN/TURN > server: 1) do ICE without it; 2) don’t do ICE at all.**** > > **** > > In case 1), I think the ICE agent will still perform host candidate > gathering and checking (STUN Bind Request/Response) even without other > types of candidates found from the servers. **** > > In case 2), the ICE agent is disabled and no ICE messages are exchanged > between peers before RTP – which could be useful if the peer doesn’t > support ICE.**** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > WebRTC clients will not communicate with peers that do not support ICE. > Please see the previous discussions on this list, but the main reason for > requiring ICE is to ensure consent from the remote party before sending any > RTP to it in order to avoid using WebRTC for DOS attacks.**** > > _____________ > Roman Shpount**** > > **** >
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 00:14:25 UTC