- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:34:18 -0700
- To: Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Iņaki, This is more or less the argument for a default port(s) for RTP. I think a default port would be a good idea. Much of the IETF disagrees with me. (I note a default port for SMTP has turned out to be sort of useful). The place to have this argument is probably the transport area list as they view themselves s the port police. I doubt it will go real well but for what it's worth, I would like a default port. I think that bundle with ICE makes it far easier to have a default port for RTP and greatly increases the number of situations where a default port will work. Cullen On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I have public IP in my computer which runs some UDP daemons (i.e. a > SIP server). I don't want to expose such a SIP server to all the world > so I set iptables to block incoming UDP traffic (unless it is in > response to UDP traffic send from my computer to the exact origin of > the incoming one). > > The problem is that with WebRTC I must be able to listen in any local > UDP port, and thus I cannot set iptables. > > So, should the browser include in "advanced settings" some kind of > "rtp-port-min" and "rtp-port-max"? IHMO assuming "always NAT" is not > good. > > Thanks a lot. > > -- > Iņaki Baz Castillo > <ibc@aliax.net> >
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 00:49:40 UTC