- From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:21:23 +0000
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Mallinath Bareddy <mallinath@google.com>
On Jun 1, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > I wasn't suggesting that you couldn't have multiple RTCIceServers - clearly that's something we still want to support. > > The idea was mainly to indicate a specific TURN server could be reachable via different protocols - while that can be accomplished via multiple RTCIceServers, it might not be desirable to try to use all protocols at once and allocate 3 TURN candidates (e.g. for UDP, TCP, and TLS). If there were multiple transports available for a single TURN server, TCP and TLS could be ignored if UDP worked (i.e. and only a single candidate would be allocated). > > Agree this may not be needed if we can rely on using S-NAPTR to look up the TURN server addresses, but is this widely deployed today? > > > I agree with Justin that it's highly desirable to be able to have the semantics that > this is a single TURN server which is reachable via three mechanisms rather > than three separate TURN servers, since I only really want to be connected > to one of them. +1 But have a read of section 6.1 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5766 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389#page-21 I thought TURN already did what you needed (and did not rely on NAPTR or S-NAPTR) > > I am not enough of an expert on DNS to know if S-NAPTR is practical here, > but I've certainly heard plenty of complaints about how all but the most basic > DNS features don't work. Do we have measurements about the accessibility > of S-NAPTR from browser-class endpoints? > > -Ekr > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 April 2013 23:06, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > > So to do this using the existing RTCIceServer syntax, one must create > > separate RTCIceServer objects for each URI, all with the same credentials. > > It seems like it would be cleaner to allow a list of URIs to be supplied in > > a RTCIceServer, which would all share the same credentials. To achieve this, > > we could simply change the current .url property from a DOMString to a list, > > or add a new .urls property that is a list of DOMStrings. > > > Any objections? > > Yeah, what Cullen said, plus: if you have multiple URIs with the same > credentials, make multiple RTCIceServers. It's not especially hard: > > var iceServers = stunServers.concat(turnUris.map(function(turnUri) { > return { url: turnUri, credential: cred, username: user }; })); > >
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 06:22:18 UTC