W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Restrict local UDP ports in browser "advanded settings"

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:34:18 -0700
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <748DB01C-CD0F-4AD0-80B0-CC8DFC3E89BE@iii.ca>
To: Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>


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. 


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:51 UTC